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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:07:45 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vqh1d1$2msm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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> <bb66fe73f9d7a84cdc35912f0fb01b3896583963@i2pn2.org> <vqf3b6$3j68u$8@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 10:07:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="31447595eaef0533ab17be3120d39290";
	logging-data="88982"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wgLllPRmJsfw0o3F59k2D"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aahPTBOgFkaWr8IYJwL1I36IhJQ=
Bytes: 5857

On 2025-03-07 15:28:38 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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,
> 
> You could show the machine-address by machine-address
> correct execution trace if i was wrong. You only
> dodge this because you k ow that I am correct.
> 
>> and your problem is still that you are trying to hold to you admitted FRAUD.
> 
> Using ad hominem instead of reasoning makes you
> look very foolish.

No ad hominem above.

-- 
Mikko