Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!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 21:30:57 -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 01:30:58 -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: 6630 Lines: 163 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. H may not have been able to prove that statement, but it could prove that it doesn't halt, and basically made a wrong guess based on faulty logic. YOU on the other hand, are just a LIAR, as you claim your H does something it doesn't.