Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:36:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 170 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 03:36:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438"; logging-data="767019"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18h/IKsikSEeWMhwH/PVT72" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wsXYwhG2qgxCooM6LELvko7mbxQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7043 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. > > VERIFIED FACT. > A verified fact to a God damned liar. The actual verified fact is that when P is correctly emulated by H according to the semantics of the x86 language that the call from P to H(P,P) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer