Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqk7ee$ooc8$3@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: 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 10:09:18 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vqk7ee$ooc8$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqk68e$ooc8$1@dont-email.me> <vqk70n$o4oh$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 15:09:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="811400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TZl6FfXrjTOkrIWvUBCqg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:588kqftrgIENTEbHsAjZNdGraLE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqk70n$o4oh$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5003

On 3/9/2025 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2025 8:49 AM, dbush wrote:
>> 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:
>>
> 
> (1) Replacing my quoted words with your words (as if I said
> your words) is despicably dishonest.

Not when you gave your official approval to do so, as posted previously 
that you dishonestly trimmed.

> 
> (2) They do not mean that same thing you removed most
> of the essence of my proof.
> 

If they didn't mean the same thing you would have explained how.  I gave 
you multiple opportunities to do so and you refused.  You were warned 
that failing to explain would be taken as your admission that they were 
the same and you still didn't explain, therefore your admission that 
they are the same was entered into the record.

I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you an opportunity to explain the 
difference now.  If you choose not to take that up, your on-the-record 
admission stands.