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: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 07:02:01 -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 11:02:02 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1011594"; 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: 11728 Lines: 261 On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========