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: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:37:53 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <9de4f5fb186e935ff0a10420c69e919cdff3da64@i2pn2.org> References: <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org> <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org> <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org> <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <500045f9223c5ab455ca73a046d61ddd5122db2e@i2pn2.org> <7c141f3bbc815bd533b7f7cb62fccd68c7297b1b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:37:53 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3193786"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7933 Lines: 129 On 3/6/25 4:13 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/6/2025 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/5/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/5/2025 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 3/5/25 4:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:03 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. >>>>> >>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* >>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally* >>>> >>>> Right, and thus any HHH that does a correct emulation can not return >>>> to its caller, >>> >>> We have been over this point too many times you are >>> just a liar. Liar and Christian is a combination with >>> very bad consequences. >>> >> >> You have said that many times, but you can't actually show what is >> wrong with it. > > A simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly simulates > its input finite string DD until it correctly determine > that DD cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction > and terminate normally. > > HHH does not stupidly get stuck in non-halting behavior > as you suggest that it should. > > Right, but until it *CORRECTLY* determines that the ACTUAL PROGRAM DD will not reach that return (not that this HHH will abort its emulation of DD before the actual correct emulation would get there), it can not do that. Your probem is just that since you have admitted that all your arguments are just fraud, as they are based on WRONG definitions with in the system (as any changed definition is wrong in the system built on the original), none of your statments actually have any truth behind them to work. You don't know (or have just changed) the definition of fundematal terms, like what is a program, which is halting, what is an input, what is "correct". Thus, everything you claim is just a LIE and a FRAUD. Programs include *ALL* the code they use, and thus DD must include all the code of HHH, and thus it doesn't change when you do the hypothetical give it to the hypothetical version of itself that doesn't abort, since that will still see the version of itself that does. Inputs need to contain a full definition of the thing they are describing, and can't just leave out part saying "look at the memory over there" without actually including that memory as part of the definiton of the input (which since it is also the HHH that is deciding, means you can't talk about changing that HHH, execpt for it being somewhere else like your HHH1, which proves you claim wrong). Halting (or Termination) is based on the actual behavior of the direct exectuion of the program, and a correct emulation of the input will exactly match that, Your failure to show an instruction correctly emulated that differed just shows you at least have some understanding that your claim they differ is unsupported, and only based on your lies. Until you fix these issues, you are just showing yourself to be a pathetic fraud who seems to be too stupid to see the fraud he is trying to pull.