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 22:25:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vqj1mn$dje3$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqj1ep$ef0h$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 04:25:12 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="445891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SHxukrUumHqDriflJHfPb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cdrpf9VWudCP+H2xLYTRRnhvPgo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqj1ep$ef0h$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10739

On 3/8/2025 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========