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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:10:07 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vqhmkf$6m7b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6l3k$1r2p8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq72iv$1tapm$3@dont-email.me> <vqbkqs$2t20u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvhm$34c3r$2@dont-email.me> <vqed44$3epcf$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqf30b$3j68u$7@dont-email.me> <vqf6ik$3j47v$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7lr$3qol2$2@dont-email.me> <vqh1l5$26ac$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 16:10:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffa3f7c8a9c06536bf515dd54724b6f7";
	logging-data="219371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WQZjYOc4WbH7kjlzecEms"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rtox2rwB3iSjP0LvoXmHmRFTNFg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-2, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vqh1l5$26ac$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5160

On 3/8/2025 3:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 02:48 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/7/2025 10:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:22 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 3/7/2025 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:11 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-04 14:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
>>>>>>>>>> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
>>>>>>>>>> own "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too 
>>>>>>>>> uninteresting that
>>>>>>>>> it would need a rebuttal, and so is the question that does it 
>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction if it exsists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>> *Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As "DD correctly emulated by HHH" does not exist 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *No one has made any attempt to show that*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no proof that it does exist. 
>>>>
>>>> Failing to understand this code is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>> Failing to understand that no HHH can correctly simulate itself is no 
>>> rebuttal at all.
>>
>> Failing to understand that Fred. Zwarts is only
>> a not very bright bot is my mistake.
>>
> 
> Irrelevant. Again no rebuttal.
> 
> So, since there is no rebuttal after two reactions from Olcott, I 
> conclude that we agree that no HHH exists that correctly simulates 
> itself up to the end.

There is no end (reaching its final state) to the simulation
of non-terminating input dumb bunny.

> HHH is correct when it reports that it could not simulate the input up 
> to the end. An input that, when given for direct execution or a world- 
> class simulator, has no problem to reach its end.
> 
> What next? What is de advantage of knowing that there are simulators 
> that are unable to complete the simulation? Didn't we know that already?


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