Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:00:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <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> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 16:00:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c";
	logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SIIvtvmw1N1t8eTIf0ZUg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Hfw5o7lmru6X+issisaBIgZBwSM=
In-Reply-To: <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4843

On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 2:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 02:49 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' 
>>>>>> instruction. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject
>>>>> WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
>>>>>
>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction 
>>>> (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct execution 
>>>> does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.
>>>
>>> *set X*
>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination
>>> analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself
>>>
>>> *result of set X*
>>> this input cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>> and terminate normally because it remains stuck in
>>> recursive emulation.
>>>
>>
>> So, we agree that any simulator that tries to simulate *itself* cannot 
>> possibly reach the end of its simulation.
> 
> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
> simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
> recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
> reach their own final state and terminate normally.

Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination analyzer, 
simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification that is 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

And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification