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 Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:56:17 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:56:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d"; logging-data="4088358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18g3RScNkAyLyeQgVYFttIV" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kVtpC6ICQktck7jN6dgzB+GZ8FI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5107 On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>> >>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>>> respected journal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>>> >>> >>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in >>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against >>> finding no errors in their rebuttal. >> >> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake >> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you >> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 >> your reply will be ignored. >> >> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to >> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >> [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] >> >> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not >> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 >> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior >> as the directly executed DDD(). >> > > Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. Incorrect and Strawman deception -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer