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: 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 20:52:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <vqis8s$dje3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$7@dont-email.me> <vqioro$d4j1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqiqa6$dc6s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 02:52:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="445891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZLoKWaCJXrXvEN8EbAZ5f"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HbzuKqaevGTukoeVs63/Kb7H0Xs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqiqa6$dc6s$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9191

On 3/8/2025 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You still don't understand that we get the same effect
> whether we replace the code or not.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========