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 21:38:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <vqiuv3$dje3$4@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqiuma$duqq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:38:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="445891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/r4iTRVNdaI6eEsnDJRHUK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V8bo7uflUoF/weOX8GxJ6dgEDW4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqiuma$duqq$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9950

On 3/8/2025 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========