Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 22:26:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 240 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 05:26:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438"; logging-data="800586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wyVp90gZHRCGIfBXxPiq3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:f/EYgF+JzZbRz3aR6LpC9qcctjg= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10857 On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========