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: Tue, 27 May 2025 09:53:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <1014jln$2lsi8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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> <1012eh5$25ce3$2@dont-email.me>
 <1012fbe$24dfe$8@dont-email.me> <1012g6n$25ej1$2@dont-email.me>
 <10142np$2ifsj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b05b1d7fc1f90d5563d667325c66ff38";
	logging-data="2814536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oKGyBEQ9wiPPwjH+z8zuS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EnhHG1jriOSBm4uicpo4k63H4zA=
In-Reply-To: <10142np$2ifsj$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250527-6, 5/27/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/27/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-26 19:42:15 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/26/2025 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Counter-factual. If we keep the input fixed, the simulated HHH aborts 
>>> after one cycle.
>>
>> Every HHH has the exact same machine code.
> 
> I.e., there is only one HHH, so saying "every HHH" is pointless.
> 

Each recursive invocation creates another HHH instance
with its own virtual registers, stack and RAM.

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