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 10:38:56 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <vqk960$ooc8$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$13@dont-email.me> <vqj63g$ipa4$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqk6ak$ooc8$2@dont-email.me> <vqk7d4$o4oh$6@dont-email.me>
 <vqk7hq$ooc8$4@dont-email.me> <vqk8eg$o4oh$8@dont-email.me>
 <vqk8hr$ooc8$6@dont-email.me> <vqk92o$pa6c$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 15:38:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="811400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xczbpLnUdBFQb0MMOw/CK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PzHMpJcWTtK4XQDnccZ+KT95kHQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqk92o$pa6c$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5047

On 3/9/2025 10:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2025 9:28 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/9/2025 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2025 9:11 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2025 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/2025 8:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an issue. 
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then
>>>>>
>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>> *because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation*
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not going to address any other point until this
>>>>> point is fully understood because the other points
>>>>> cannot possibly be understood until this one is totally
>>>>> understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not and how it applies to the Halting
>>>>> Theorem cannot possibly be understood at all until after
>>>>> the above words are 100% totally and perfectly understood.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that a solution to the halting problem perform the 
>>>> following mapping:
>>>>
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>>> directly
>>>>
>>>> I am not going to address any other point until this
>>>> point is fully understood because the other points
>>>> cannot possibly be understood until this one is totally
>>>> understood.
>>>
>>> If you went to play head games you can play by yourself.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you're disagreeing with a stipulative definition.
>>
>> As you yourself said:
>>
> 
> You cannot possibly understand anything that I say
> about that until you after you first understand this:
> 
> When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then
> 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.
> 
> 

On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
 > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions.
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
 >
 > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with
 > arithmetic.