Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:46:14 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vqhoo7$64cl$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 16:46:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="111ebc5957824e612f76d2436b1c509b";
	logging-data="201109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lCXYUX+/abkdZtDkBHak0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g/LMPxVO4vff3gaSGX7/W+V9T6Y=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5036

Op 08.mrt.2025 om 15:03 schreef olcott:
> 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.

If we agree, what is the problem?
We agree that HHH correctly reports that it cannot possibly bring the 
simulation of itself to a correct end.

> 
>> Why would we want to use such an analyser that reports that it fails 
>> to complete the simulation?
> 
> Perhaps you incorrectly expect infinite loops to end?
> 

Wrong. I understand perfectly that HHH cannot possible reach the end of 
the simulation of itself and it correctly reports that it could not 
complete the simulation.

Why disagreeing when I agree with you?