Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vqhm6i$6fo8$4@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 10:02:44 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: <vqhm6i$6fo8$4@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> <vqh0j9$26ac$2@dont-email.me> <vqhjm6$5r7r$4@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 16:02:43 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c"; logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Xllmg6GldcKd19MgdzkRp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:dNJ7LpkzhnjGOlV4fMiAovc5+CI= In-Reply-To: <vqhjm6$5r7r$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7799 On 3/8/2025 9:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 3/8/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 02:09 schreef olcott: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Yes. And what is the advantage of a simulator HHH that reports that it >> cannot possibly complete the simulation of a proven halting program up >> to the end, because it gets stuck in simulating *itself*? > > It is ridiculously stupid to expect a simulating > termination analyzer to Do anything except map 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