Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:20:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6g9l$1ptg9$2@dont-email.me>
	<vq722k$1tapm$1@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
	<5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
	<vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
	<2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
	<vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
	<4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
	<vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
	<920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
	<vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:20:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3086371"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4013
Lines: 49

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.

> The purpose of these posts is so that my posthumous reviewers will
> understand.
There won't be any.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.