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 10:01:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vqhm4q$6fo8$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>
 <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@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 16:01:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c";
	logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AE/Vt1YXRcawQ4uzv8HOA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y9x/EQuYXR7JiXuuX0ATXY7ltCc=
In-Reply-To: <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6635

On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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. 

The source code contains a finite sequence of truth preserving steps 
between axioms and a statement?