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 10:05:55 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vqectk$3epcf$3@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 10:05:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="339e9c8c1960627e5d4e132925ecb9d4";
	logging-data="3630479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ricDXh0dsIpXp+Fb+/4Qk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L766aCAPrYL5+dSlCp3/n6qO5No=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqd2i4$34sev$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6880

Op 06.mrt.2025 om 22:02 schreef olcott:
> 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
>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH 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
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
> 
> In the latter case HHH can (and does) report that
> its input finite string specifies a non-terminating
> sequence of instructions.
> 

No, it reports its failure to complete the simulation.
The non-termination exists only in Olcott's dreams.