Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/8/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 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 !!!
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly
reach its own final state and terminate normally.
>
Two people with masters degrees in computer science
agreed. Gaslighting me on this makes you look like
a complete nitwit.
>

>
I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, that it will not halt.
>
So now what?
>

>
We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic
idea such that additional elaboration from this full set
of details:
>
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.
>

>
Obviously.  So now what?

>
You still don't understand that we get the same effect
whether we replace the code or not.
>

 Right, because a partial (and therefore incorrect) simulation doesn't prove anything.
 So then what?

Thus a partial thus incomplete emulation of an
infinite loop cannot possibly determine that this
loop will not terminate. Very stupid reasoning
on your part. It is as if you simply "do not believe in"
mathematical induction.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer