Path: ...!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 22:31:20 -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 02:31:20 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="940453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9138 Lines: 208 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> VERIFIED FACT. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A verified fact to a God damned liar. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========