Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:58:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
 <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
 <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
 <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdlqp$371bi$6@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 09:58:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="339e9c8c1960627e5d4e132925ecb9d4";
	logging-data="3630480"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CaqaTxcj5opbddp0rMMdE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QpatxojXa/WThLxPU0gBTvjJufA=
In-Reply-To: <vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 6804

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott:
> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has 
>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>> do with the halting problem, but you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO QUIT THE
>>>>>>>>> SHIT!
>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that
>>>>>>>> changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and running
>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional
>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, which you
>>>>>> previously agreed is correct:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an
>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is
>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different.
>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional 
>>>>>> simulator
>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X).
>>>>>
>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject and endlessly go
>>>>> through anything but the exact point.
>>>
>>>> You used to have enough time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.
>>
>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods 
> 
> _DD()
> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002155] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 

No such HHH exists.
The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH reaches the 
call to HHH:

1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of HHH. This 
might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no correct simulation.

2) HHH recognises that it starts emulating itself. This requires extra 
input to HHH, so it not really a valid option, but if it is allowed than 
other options are possible (not that in these cases the infinite 
recursion does o longer exist):

2a) Abort the simulation at this point to avoid infinite recursion. The 
problem with this is that it does not reach the most important part of 
DD, so it does not yet know what DD does with the result of HHH.
The only thing HHH can do is to report that it cannot simulate this input.
Therefore this method causes any program that calls HHH to become 
undecidable by HHH. So, no correct simulation.

2b) Make a shortcut, skip the call and replace it with the return value 
of HHH and continue the simulation.
When HHH does that it will reach the code where DD contradicts the 
result of HHH, so, again there is no correct simulation.

Conclusion: a correct simulation of HHH by itself cannot possibly exist. 
So, the claim is vacuous.
A correct simulation will reach the 'ret' instruction, as proven by the 
direct execution and other world-class simulators, but HHH fails to 
reach the 'ret' instruction.