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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:22:27 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vqg9l3$3qol2$10@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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>
 <vqg5bk$3qe49$1@dont-email.me>
 <fcb35e8f9e81e513ae37369bc224f02a43d0c4e4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 03:22:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c1a9e9f5bdca80ea03a12b2b1cb28cf";
	logging-data="4022946"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181Wgu6hF2Gcy18535MEd/5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dz9htQ26sJ5Scp1Stw9K23Dc2kI=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250307-8, 3/7/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <fcb35e8f9e81e513ae37369bc224f02a43d0c4e4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7558

On 3/7/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/7/25 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> And the HHH that correctly emulated the DD can't possibly answer, 

That is stupidly wrong and you know it.

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