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 20:33:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <vqiuma$duqq$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <vqis8s$dje3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:33:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d63a95d414014c9c5b76bf21b1bac3a5";
	logging-data="457562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q9nIs+6YUydYVTKjpXqJe"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJR29M7v2ogd+x5D9vnc9UeuEVg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqis8s$dje3$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 9848

On 3/8/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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?
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========