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: Tue, 27 May 2025 09:56:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <1014jqb$2lsi8$3@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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>
 <1012gt7$24dfe$11@dont-email.me> <1012hd2$25un5$1@dont-email.me>
 <10142t8$2igql$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 16:56:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b05b1d7fc1f90d5563d667325c66ff38";
	logging-data="2814536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nYq+2fb+mQbvSXe8ki3w+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hVAOsDzXn19ef5pY5gzUKH2MHSc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10142t8$2igql$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250527-6, 5/27/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 10634

On 5/27/2025 5:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-26 20:02:42 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/26/2025 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:42 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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.
>>>> If the outer HHH waits for the next inner one to abort
>>>> then the next inner one waits for its next inner one...
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you admit that you change the input when you change the simulator.
>>
>> That is a stupid thing to say that has nothing to do
>> with recursive emulation.
> 
> No, it not. It is am essential part of honest communication, where it
> is essential to ensure that the message is correctly understood bofre
> any substanatial comment about it is made.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========