Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:01:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 109 Message-ID: References: <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org> <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: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 16:01:46 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c"; logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AE/Vt1YXRcawQ4uzv8HOA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y9x/EQuYXR7JiXuuX0ATXY7ltCc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6635 On 3/8/2025 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. The source code contains a finite sequence of truth preserving steps between axioms and a statement?