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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:49:03 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <vqk68e$ooc8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqj5k2$dje3$13@dont-email.me> <vqj6e6$j0t2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 14:49:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="811400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OeGdoSiTj3DHyzYdALMEk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i7G/T7fzvdczOWvVV9PmxKno7Pw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqj6e6$j0t2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5779

On 3/8/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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*
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, HHH fails to meet the requirement to be classified as 
>> a solution to the halting problem, as you have already admitted.
>>
> 
> Erasing and replacing my words with your words
> is a real scumbag move.

Not when you gave your official approval to do so after admitting for 
the record that they mean the same thing:


On 3/6/2025 8:22 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/5/2025 11:06 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Last chance:
 >>
 >> 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).
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply (or within one hour of your next
 >> post in this newsgroup) will be taken as your on-the-record admission
 >> that they mean the same thing, and that additionally you officially
 >> approve of replacing the former with the latter in any of your quotes
 >> to make it clear exactly what you're talking about.
 >>
 >
 > Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above quoted message:
 >
 > On 3/5/2025 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
 >  > instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
 >  > Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
 >  > no third choice.
 >
 > And has not responded to the quoted message above more than 8 hours
 > after he made the above post.
 >
 > He has therefore satisfied the requirements stated above for admission
 > of the given statement.  So:
 >
 > Let The Record Show:
 >
 > That Peter Olcott:
 >
 > Has admitted that the following statement (Statement 1):
 >
 > DD correctly simulated by HHH
 >
 > Is exactly equivalent to the following statement (Statement 2):
 >
 > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
 > subsequently running HHH(DD)
 >
 > And has given his official permission to anyone responding to his
 > messages to replace Statement 1 with Statement 2 in any of his quoted
 > messages for the purposes of making it clear what he is claiming