Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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 Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:40:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: References: <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org> <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org> <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org> <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 04:40:20 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="db4728744bd19dc57b83c0857c722f7b"; logging-data="3421308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rvOJoizs6MKKlmJdOS0RS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mgVtAy8LXiFvSqfDwRpVTUpwnng= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7974 On 3/6/2025 8:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/6/2025 3:18 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/6/2025 4:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/6/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/6/2025 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ret' instruction, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the direct execution and some world-class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulators have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no problem to reach it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1. DD DOES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT call its own emulator when directly executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just show your stupidity, as DD doesn't HAVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulator, and CAN'T know who or if it is being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the straw-man >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception to change the subject away from: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich is the strawman, that you are too stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recogines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will show that it is not straw-man after you quit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong order, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though logically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requried, because you need to hide your fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the next step? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* >>>>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that it >>>>>>>>>>>> is the the simplest way to state the key element of the >>>>>>>>>>>> whole proof and make this element impossible to correctly >>>>>>>>>>>> refute. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT >>>>>>>>>>>> IS DISHONEST. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree >>>>>>>>>>> on the question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY >>>>>>>>>> behavior that matters is the behavior of the directly executed >>>>>>>>>> program whose description is provided. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is a stupid thing to say. >>>>>>>>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the >>>>>>>>> basis of what its finite string INPUT specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES >>>>>>>>> *Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach* >>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally* >>>>>>>> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the simulation >>>>>>>> up to the end. No more, no less. >>>>>>>> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure of >>>>>>>> a simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The finite string of replacing the code of HHH with an >>>>>>> unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) >>>>>>> specifies recursive emulation that cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES >>>>>>> RECURSINVE EMULATION. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Makes sense >>>>> >>>>> Whether or not the code of HHH is replaced >>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach >>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. >>>> >>>> Yes, that makes sense.  Now what? >>> >>> BF Skinner's extinction >>> >> >> You wanted people to accept that > > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and > subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. > Which we accept. So what's next?