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: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:09:58 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@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> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$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 15:10:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffa3f7c8a9c06536bf515dd54724b6f7";
	logging-data="191739"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194xnaDcRewxziTjELlMf8h"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7Jbjy6Iy+EK/xd6LbDiDak7caG8=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-2, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6706

On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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 such HHH exists.
>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH reaches the 
>>> call to HHH:
>>>
>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of HHH. 
>>> This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no correct 
>>> simulation.
>>>
>> The code proves otherwise
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 
> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no
> different program exists.
> 

The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it
actually does (as most people here have tried to get
away with) they are necessarily incorrect.

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