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
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:01:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vqhpke$64cl$5@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>
 <vqhmkf$6m7b$1@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 17:01:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="111ebc5957824e612f76d2436b1c509b";
	logging-data="201109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HsVeMiZHCpB/xjervTG8a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JUOmlAd81wDf3k68Rj44ZohgI3E=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqhmkf$6m7b$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5283

Op 08.mrt.2025 om 16:10 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
Is it dumb to agree with Olcott? It seems that he is stuck in rebuttal 
mode, so that, even if I agree with him, he thinks I am wrong.
Is that a sign of intelligence, or is Olcott just a random sentence 
selector, fed with disagreement sentences?

We agree that HHH correctly reports that it cannot possibly reach the 
'ret' instruction of a finite string, that, when given for direct 
execution or given to a world-class simulator has no problem to reach 
the end. In other words, HHH correctly reports that it cannot correctly 
simulate this proven halting input up to the end.