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 09:30:14 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vqf3e6$3j68u$9@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> <vqf2i6$3j47v$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 16:30:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5fdc4a391fe0d8eb65ab632bee7b927c";
	logging-data="3774750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qI/4kulvnOLl3CD0/8ntB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8AZCQZsvaYwB1DEYlih9JIJZS78=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqf2i6$3j47v$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250307-4, 3/7/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 6382

On 3/7/2025 9:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

Simulating termination analyzer HHH simulates its input DD until HHH 
correctly determines that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return" 
instruction and terminate normally.

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