Path: 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 21:22:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 04:22:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b05b1d7fc1f90d5563d667325c66ff38";
	logging-data="2543070"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UgrfjLV4joN1H7TKUOoO6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8rHGP0rMQj852vNA9qQH6tlztNw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250526-16, 5/26/2025), Outbound message

On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from the 
>>>>> beginning
>>>>> to end.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point.
>>>> DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86
>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>>> final halt state, thus is correctly rejected as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does that, 
>>> and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD is 
>>> "completed" to contain that same code.
>>>
>>> Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program, 
>>
>> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then
>> DDD() and HHH() never stop running proving that
>> the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-TERMINATING
>> BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED.
>>
> 
> But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact that 
> DDD() will halt.
> 

*Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit*
It is a tautology that every input that must be
aborted to prevent the infinite simulation of this
input DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR.



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