Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:54:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <vqioro$d4j1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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$6@dont-email.me>
 <vqimab$bcso$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 01:54:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="430689"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1CmgU6IkUFTCfEuoJf9qS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3l8leErvmpQyzuuvSD17yPgKb6U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqimab$bcso$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8496

On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
> 
> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 

Obviously.  So now what?