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 ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:52:28 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vqhp3s$6vdc$1@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> <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>
 <edb151ad06518b611c6b8a3276cbe8acbdd5e371@i2pn2.org>
 <vqg9jk$3qol2$9@dont-email.me>
 <1b9fbbd0fba1c733b05eebaa6bdbc6652c2ecdb5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 16:52:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffa3f7c8a9c06536bf515dd54724b6f7";
	logging-data="228780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nM9od84Hj4WnPuSOysUJj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AVqDuhPwmIVXUnncawN71eNnHHA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-2, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1b9fbbd0fba1c733b05eebaa6bdbc6652c2ecdb5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5573

On 3/8/2025 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/7/25 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/7/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/7/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But the failure of the PARTIAL emulatipon done by the termination 
>>> analyzer doesn't show that the input is non-haltiong
>>>
>>
>> That is stupidly wrong and you know it.
>>
>>
> 
> What is wrong with it?
> 

A proof is anything and everything that shows a
statement is necessarily true and impossibly false.

The code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it does,
making any disagreements with what it does necessarily
incorrect.

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.

It is ridiculously stupid to expect a simulating
termination analyzer to continue to simulate an
input that specifies it cannot possibly reach its
own final state and terminate normally.

When anyone says that DD emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language can possibly reach
its own"ret" instruction and terminate normally they are
conclusively proven wrong.


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