Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqj1ep$ef0h$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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 21:20:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vqj1ep$ef0h$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$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$2@dont-email.me> <vqiv31$dje3$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 04:20:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d75665534b29fc22cfbd837ef533f60b";
	logging-data="474129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SrbxfeRnRymaOiC2oHlkM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k2PdAUsp6bHy2so+NNhRK7kDqTk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqiv31$dje3$5@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10571

On 3/8/2025 8:40 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========