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: "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 16:15:18 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <vqf2i6$3j47v$1@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>
 <3e49cecf2307c385ab65edcfb375b8ad54480402@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdnf6$380b4$2@dont-email.me>
 <76a4db051a2d8043a7cafd46f5dfbdfdb005ca96@i2pn2.org>
 <vqf119$3j68u$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 16:15:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a77458fd2c5896a13ec1fd45fabf85a";
	logging-data="3772671"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FIjJC5PW0RNJnbj9Y37js"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jFqbtsWWw+oAI9Q7I8gDxy4Vjzc=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqf119$3j68u$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5818

Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:49 schreef olcott:
> On 3/7/2025 2:02 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/25 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> So what's the next step?
>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Yes, that is the directly executed program.
>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>> No, DD doesn't specify anything about what is to simulate it.
>>
>>>>>> 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 DD correctly emulated by HHH specifies recursive
>>>>> emulation that cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE
>>>>> IT SPECIFIES RECURSINVE EMULATION.
>> No, HHH aborts.
>>
>>>> But the HHH that decides are returns can't be that HHH, so the DD given
>>>> to that HHH doesn't call the correctly emulating HHH, so you whole
>>>> argument is shown to be the fraud you have admitted to.
>>> That seems to be a little incoherent so I cannot tell what you are
>>> saying yet you are at least attempting to use reasoning.
>>> I am just saying what the actual x86 machine code actually specifies
>>> therefore any rebuttal is necessarily incorrect.
> 
>> And the actual code of DD specifies that it halts.
>>
> *Straw-man deception*
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
Strawman. HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, so HHH fails to do a 
compete simulation.