Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 08:41:03 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me>
 <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
 <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
 <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me> <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me> <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me> <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me> <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 08:41:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65ed6df032e329e9dd8e850d5ae20470";
	logging-data="258334"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/LFH29D7BBckjOqGNZKbP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3HBhy3aBpj4XM/SvKJLtVONrXvo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3720

Op 06.jul.2024 om 21:14 schreef olcott:
> On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that 
>>>> aborts and halts? 
>>>
>>> Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
>>> the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
>>
>> Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore continuing to 
>> talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
>> I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not feel 
>> offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, if 
>> incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
>>
>>>
>>> If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
>>> language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
>>> DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>> cannot possibly return.
>>
>> I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return, 
>> because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
> 
> According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
> FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
> FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.

Therefore, you should agree that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself 
correctly. That is what the semantics of the x86 teach you.
There is no disagreement about the semantics of the x86, if you see that 
it means that HHH cannot possibly reach its own 'ret' instruction, 
therefore, the simulation cannot possibly be correct.

> 
> I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
> the point where I don't care which it is.
>