Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:21:10 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 184 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:21:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a"; logging-data="132943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hOmR1yTh2JCKa+S0LAYea" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lOShZSyN43FRJIwpmmlN7sit5Iw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9049 On 6/9/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/9/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/9/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void HHH(ptr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, ptr I) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02   { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03     P(I); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04     return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05   } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08   { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10     return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13   int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14   { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16   } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus never halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH(DD,DD) aborts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before proceeding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK then we are done talking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You instead could explain how you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution "correct". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or why H and HH are different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result in any mutual agreement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so you are threatening to take your ball and go home., >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual >>>>>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>>>>>>>>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or >>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you >>>>>>>>>>> need to clearify the meaning of it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When someone "questions what you mean by something" >>>>>>>>>> by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several >>>>>>>>> times after being corrected. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION. >>>>>>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then stop Lying! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I never have lied and you know it* >>>>> >>>>> Another Lie. (Read the message you trimed) >>>>> >>>>>> *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE* >>>>> >>>>> Another Lie. (Read the messsage you trimed) >>>>> >>>>>> *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER* >>>>>> *WINS DEFAMATION CASES* >>>>> >>>>> Nope, since my words are correct, you have no case. >>>>> >>>>> Do you REALLY want to have to testify on the stand before a jury of >>>>> "normal" people and try to explain your idea to them and convince >>>>> tem that you are telling the truth. >>>>> >>>>> Think you could stand the counter claims? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* >>>>> >>>>> Nope, Never *PROVEN* >>>>> >>>>> And not by the right defintion of "Correctly SImulated" to claim >>>>> not-halting. >>>>> >>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* >>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* >>>>>> >>>>>> That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that >>>>>> the x86 source-code of D exactly matches the two execution >>>>>> traces that I provided. *It is much easier to see in Google Groups* >>>>> >>>>> Nope, remember, you still havn't correctly simulated the call H >>>>> instruction, and have instructions listed that were never actual >>>>> gotten to again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think that found the spot in the source-code to insert the >>>> display of the simulated lines of H simulated by H. This >>>> might only be 100 pages of output. >>> >>> So do it. And then provide an analysis where you show how you PROVE >>> your statement. (And be clear exactly what statement you are claiming >>> to prove) >>> >> Perhaps you have always been hiding your lack of sufficient >> technical competence? >> >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> This has ALWAYS proved that D is correctly simulated by H. > > Nope, Since D(D) Halts, the answer of 0 is NOT correct, and H has NOT > proven that no such simulation can halt. > *That you keep ignoring this is less than no rebuttal at all* THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========