Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:37:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vqk92o$pa6c$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$13@dont-email.me>
 <vqj63g$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$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 15:37:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9489a26c682238c9921fc6cb3f1d3d5b";
	logging-data="829644"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19h2f2+B2ZuH/wRd7YnVUuU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SWGlyAydkQu6nZjB2eYNeNLJQcc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqk8hr$ooc8$6@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-2, 3/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4844

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
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer