Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:40:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <vqdpr4$38d3s$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6g9l$1ptg9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq722k$1tapm$1@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
 <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
 <vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me> <vqd0hc$34ing$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqd2i4$34sev$1@dont-email.me> <vqd39j$34ing$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqd3cp$34sev$4@dont-email.me> <vqd3g2$34ing$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqdi8e$371bi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 04:40:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="db4728744bd19dc57b83c0857c722f7b";
	logging-data="3421308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rvOJoizs6MKKlmJdOS0RS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mgVtAy8LXiFvSqfDwRpVTUpwnng=
In-Reply-To: <vqdi8e$371bi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7974

On 3/6/2025 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2025 3:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/6/2025 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2025 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ret' instruction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the direct execution and some world-class 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulators have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no problem to reach it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1. DD DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just show your stupidity, as DD doesn't HAVE 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulator, and CAN'T know who or if it is being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the straw-man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception to change the subject away from:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich is the strawman, that you are too stupid to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recogines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will show that it is not straw-man after you quit 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong order,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though logically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requried, because you need to hide your fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ten.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the next step?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the the simplest way to state the key element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> whole proof and make this element impossible to correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT
>>>>>>>>>>>> IS DISHONEST.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree 
>>>>>>>>>>> on the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior that matters is the behavior of the directly executed 
>>>>>>>>>> program whose description is provided.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>>>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the
>>>>>>>>> basis of what its finite string INPUT specifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES
>>>>>>>>> *Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the simulation 
>>>>>>>> up to the end. No more, no less.
>>>>>>>> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure of 
>>>>>>>> a simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string of replacing the code of HHH with an 
>>>>>>> unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> specifies recursive emulation that cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES
>>>>>>> RECURSINVE EMULATION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not the code of HHH is replaced
>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that makes sense.  Now what?
>>>
>>> BF Skinner's extinction
>>>
>>
>> You wanted people to accept that 
> 
> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
> 

Which we accept.  So what's next?