Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 23:11:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:11:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="940452"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 10194 Lines: 229 On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/23/2024 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/23/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/23/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/23/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 6:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know what the freak I was talking from prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions unless your brain is so damaged that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't remember anything from one post to the next. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case that you affirm that your brain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this damaged then I humbly apologize. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you insist on lying about this verified fact? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't say it can't be true, but it hasn't been proven, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largely because it seems you don't know how to do a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then where is the proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And were is the simulation that H0 did? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to show where you ACTUALLY PROVED it just shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>> a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember the parts of a Formal Logic Proof: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You could disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 on this same Jackass basis. >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 ON THE FREAKING BASIS OF THE SEMANTICS OF ARITHMETIC. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I seen proofs that 2 + 3 = 5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And that is done on a proof that uses the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>> aritmetic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The phrase "Semantics of Arithmetic" though, is not a proof. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language >>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then try to prove it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will not try any prove that 2 + 3 = 5, if you deny >>>>>>>>>> it then you are a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you don't need to, as it has been done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, showing how 2 + 3 = 5 would help show you how to right an >>>>>>>>> actual proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise for the behavior of DDD correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>> by H0. A correct x86 emulator already proved this three >>>>>>>>>> years ago and you still try and get away with lying about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. Just a fallacy of proof by example, which isn't a proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have gotten it down to this ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE >>>>>>>>>> THAT MY PROOF IS CORRECT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No proof, just means your statement is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TYPE ERROR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of HALTING. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likewise for P correctly emulated by H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AGAIN TYPE ERROR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of HALTING. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr2)(); >>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> int P(ptr2 x) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _P() >>>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter >>>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter >>>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P) >>>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101 >>>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff >>>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>>>>> [00002104] 8be5 mov esp,ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00002106] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00002107] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And, P(P) Halts since you have indicated that H(P,P) to returns 0. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========