Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:11:53 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@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> <vqeceq$3epcg$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 16:11:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5fdc4a391fe0d8eb65ab632bee7b927c";
	logging-data="3774750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KIdd5vTm7Kl5fl3coqneG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YoZ1r8jV6A6b9/n4C9wMW1uZMM0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250307-4, 3/7/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7340

On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
> 
The code proves otherwise
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

> 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.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer