Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:43:06 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vqjnrb$l8rk$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$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> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <vqik16$bcd0$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqine6$cton$1@dont-email.me> <vqiovv$d4j1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqiqk0$dc6s$2@dont-email.me> <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me> <vqiur3$dje3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqj2ab$dje3$8@dont-email.me> <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
 <vqj342$dje3$10@dont-email.me> <vqj3bc$ef0h$9@dont-email.me>
 <vqj3n1$dje3$12@dont-email.me> <vqj460$il72$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqj4mf$ikc5$1@dont-email.me> <vqj57r$ipa4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 10:43:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe0f48013a0a36293531e83ac0dcbef";
	logging-data="697204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bG20uTrWPQZmHnaLqlEaI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MgFHJ5RwXJhaJBn5hr53RLFO0YM=
In-Reply-To: <vqj57r$ipa4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 3882

Op 09.mrt.2025 om 05:25 schreef olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no 
>>>>>>>> real rebuttal for what others have said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   <copy-paste response>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you have no rebuttal. 
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>>>>
>>>>> *UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
>>>>> *THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>>>>>
>>>>> <copy-paste response>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a 
>>>> solution to the halting problem 
>>>
>>> *I never said that*
>>
>> Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
>>
> 
> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
If that is the only thing you can say, we see that HHH correctly reports 
that it cannot possible reach the 'ret' instruction of its input. An 
input for which direct execution and world-class simulators have no 
problem to reach the end of this finite recursion.
We agree with that. What next? There is no relationship with a halting 
or termination decider, because they should report about the behaviour 
of the input, not about the behaviour of the simulation.