Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:03:43 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:03:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3522651"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8127 Lines: 145 On 3/8/25 6:41 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No such HHH exists. >>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH reaches >>>>>> the call to HHH: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of HHH. >>>>>> This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no correct >>>>>> simulation. >>>>>> >>>>> The code proves otherwise >>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>> >>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no >>>> different program exists. >>>> >>> >>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it >>> actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it >>> actually does (as most people here have tried to get >>> away with) they are necessarily incorrect. >>> >> >> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of its >> input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed it must be. >> > > > THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!! > DD correctly emulated by HHH  cannot possibly > reach its own final state and terminate normally. Right, but that "TAUTOLOGY" also is about an HHH that isn't the one that we have in the problem, and thus isn't actually a real tautology, but a fictional one. > > Two people with masters degrees in computer science > agreed. Gaslighting me on this makes you look like > a complete nitwit. > And more disagree with your conclusion, showing that the gaslighting was done by your on yourself. You are the one that looks like a complete idiot, as you keep on repeat the same proven wrong statement with no attempt to show how the error pointed out wasn't an error, because you have just run out of excuses to try to use. Sorry, YOU are the one shown to have come to the battle of wits unarmed. Maybe your cancer has killed of the remaining smart cells, as you used to be better at coming up with excuses.