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 22:00:10 -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 02:00:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="940452"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7479 Lines: 181 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. >> >> VERIFIED FACT. >> > > A verified fact to a God damned liar. Nope, actual verified fact, one YOU have even proven and agreed to. SO, I guess you are just showing you are just a LIAR. > > The actual verified fact is that when P is correctly emulated ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========