Path: ...!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 18:10:51 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <vqimab$bcso$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
 <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
 <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
 <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me>
 <a390b2624353f0c413856a153ebbc4ccbdeb2f56@i2pn2.org>
 <vqikjn$bcso$5@dont-email.me> <vqilbl$bcd0$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 01:10:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d63a95d414014c9c5b76bf21b1bac3a5";
	logging-data="373656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JiHSCkDX73A8J3J8oil33"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CYIm6tV6CGTsU1hu6jjZckA2q6M=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqilbl$bcd0$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8443

On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously agreed is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly go
>>>>>>>>>>>> through anything but the exact point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You used to have enough time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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
>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such HHH exists.
>>>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH reaches 
>>>>>>> the call to HHH:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of 
>>>>>>> HHH. This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no 
>>>>>>> correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The code proves otherwise
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no
>>>>> different program exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
>>>> actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it
>>>> actually does (as most people here have tried to get
>>>> away with) they are necessarily incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of its 
>>> input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed it must be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!!
>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>> subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly
>> reach its own final state and terminate normally.
>>
>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science
>> agreed. Gaslighting me on this makes you look like
>> a complete nitwit.
>>
> 
> I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH is 
> replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, that it 
> will not halt.
> 
> So now what?
> 

We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic
idea such that additional elaboration from this full set
of details:

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

COMPLETES MY PROOF

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