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 19:09:08 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vqg5bk$3qe49$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$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>
 <vqf3e6$3j68u$9@dont-email.me> <vqf3ks$3j1hs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 02:09:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c1a9e9f5bdca80ea03a12b2b1cb28cf";
	logging-data="4012169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19r6c5ONvjJj82AkNY3fdFx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lNCwmm785rj38XiQAAmsxU2UtpE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqf3ks$3j1hs$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250307-8, 3/7/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6979

On 3/7/2025 9:33 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> So you're saying it maps the halting function?
> 
> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> 
> 

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.


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