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 21:09:13 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 188 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 04:09:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438"; logging-data="781534"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Xe2WpQjmi9Chd6UhSjz2f" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:g9joS/ww8RtKNsudY3ZO/R6ylTo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7878 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. > > Nope, actual verified fact, one YOU have even proven and agreed to. > > SO, I guess you are just showing you are just a LIAR. > > >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========