Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 14:13:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <1012eh5$25ce3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <100ve61$1e53o$2@dont-email.me> <100vh47$1f7a8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vm8r$1gcup$1@dont-email.me> <100voa5$1go1g$2@dont-email.me>
 <100vquk$1h8eh$2@dont-email.me> <100vrlp$1hnk3$1@dont-email.me>
 <10118u5$1thsm$1@dont-email.me> <10120kh$22da5$2@dont-email.me>
 <10123jo$22udp$3@dont-email.me> <10124bq$22da5$14@dont-email.me>
 <1012c1u$24dfd$1@dont-email.me> <1012cl9$24p17$2@dont-email.me>
 <1012dfm$24dfd$5@dont-email.me> <1012dq6$256m5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1012e5r$24dfe$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 21:13:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae";
	logging-data="2273731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nUnrkFfu6w0GfJOBXxvp4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PMctL0D8ojaugqnP8cM8GRcjMwE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1012e5r$24dfe$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 8506

On 5/26/2025 2:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:01 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/26/2025 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 20:41 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:31 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 18:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 11:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:16 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mei.2025 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mei.2025 om 20:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mei.2025 om 18:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mei.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that myself and Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott have to fight against.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop, too, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing would be left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why repeating this bug in HHH?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That everyone that understands these things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees that there is no bug makes your statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the kind of reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that loses defamation cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words by objective standards: YOU ARE A LIAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad hominem attacks showing lack of counter arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you are objectively a liar then calling
>>>>>>>>>>>> you a liar is merely stating the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again a baseless ad hominem attack, showing lack of counter 
>>>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dared you to show my mistake your failure to even
>>>>>>>>>> attempt this sufficiently proves that you are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You only ignore it when your failures are shown and start again 
>>>>>>>>> repeating the baseless claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every competent programmer will understand that when the input 
>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting program, including the code to abort and 
>>>>>>>>> return, but HHH fails to see that part of the specification, 
>>>>>>>>> then HHH has a bug.
>>>>>>>>> I know you will ignore it again and reply with only ad hominem 
>>>>>>>>> attacks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
>>>>>>>> wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
>>>>>>>> on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH needs only one recursion more that the number of recursions 
>>>>>>> in the input.
>>>>>>> So, if your HHH has only one recursion, two recursions are 
>>>>>>> needed, except when you change the input, but that is not allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you said that the first four instructions of DDD
>>>>>> are emulated twice and we are at machine address 0000219a.
>>>>>> So a correct emulator could interpret "call 000015d2"
>>>>>> to mean "jmp 000021a3" ???
>>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently this is over your head. That is not what I said. You are 
>>>>> mixing recursion levels.
>>>>> The simulated HHH in its first recursion (which is the second 
>>>>> recursion of the simulating HHH) aborts at 0000219a (because we do 
>>>>> not change the input, so the simulated HHH aborts after one cycle). 
>>>>> It is programmed to not execute the call but abort and return. That 
>>>>> will make that the call at 0000219a simulated by the simulating HHH 
>>>>> returns and the simulating HHH will process the next instruction at 
>>>>> 0000219f and the following instructions, up to the 'ret' 
>>>>> instruction at 000021a3.
>>>>> A return from a call is very normal in the x86 language and if you 
>>>>> think that it means that the call is replaced with a jmp 
>>>>> instruction, you show your ignorance of the x86 language.
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>
>>>> unless some HHH aborts its emulation of its DDD
>>>> DDD() and HHH() never halt.
>>> That is what I said. The simulated HHH, specified in the input, does 
>>> abort, so no abort is needed in the simulating HHH.
>>
>> Likewise when you are starving to death there is no reason
>> to get anything to eat because you know that after you eat
>> you will no longer be starving to death.
> I see that it is over your head. But it is simple:
> If no-one is starving, we do not need to eat. If there is no non-halting 
> program, there is no need to abort its simulation.

Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its own simulation of DDD
then DDD(), HHH() never halt proving that DDD
specifies a non halting sequence of configurations.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer