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: Sat, 31 May 2025 10:51:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <101f8h8$173bb$7@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <1013tkq$2h8vj$3@dont-email.me>
 <1014ls5$2lsi8$7@dont-email.me> <1016hsk$35agb$1@dont-email.me>
 <101782n$39etk$6@dont-email.me>
 <598498aff364c9e1b90a9db1e18bd1e27a18b993@i2pn2.org>
 <101bt22$dklb$1@dont-email.me> <101cj31$hfof$5@dont-email.me>
 <101ehoe$11tu3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 17:51:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1281387"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iRiNDLkDAi3G119kMYTAv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gQPwEu+IPDg22xGLrq73LkCKrkk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-2, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101ehoe$11tu3$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-30 15:32:48 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/30/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-29 01:37:49 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/25 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/2025 3:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. There is no need to prevent infinite 
>>>>>>>> simulation, because the input includes DDD with all functions 
>>>>>>>> called by DDD, including the code in Halt7.c that specifies the 
>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless the outmost HHH aborts then none of them
>>>>>>> abort because they all of the exact same machine code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only when you also change the input. Changing input from a HHH 
>>>>>> that aborts to a HHH that does not abort is changing the subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It either every HHH aborts or no HHH aborts
>>>>> because they all have the same machine code.
>>>>
>>>> And if every HHH aborts and returns 0, then every DDD will Halt.
>>>>
>>>> If no HHH aborts, then no HHH ever answers.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases, it is wrong.
>>>
>>> And if every HHH aborts and returns 1 then every DDD will halt. In
>>> this case HHH is right. But in this case HHH is not Olcott's HHH.
>>

Abort must return 0, 1 is only returned when an input
reaches its own final halt state.

int main()
{
   DDD(); // the HHH that DDD calls is not supposed to
}        // report on the behavior of its caller.
          // It is supposed to report on the behavior
          // that its input specifies.

>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH the first four
>> instructions of DDD are emulated. When HHH(DDD) is
>> called from DDD then HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>
>> No matter how many times HHH emulates itself emulating
>> DDD the emulated DDD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
>> instruction final halt state. This proves that DDD emulated
>> by HHH is non-halting.
> 
> That does not contradict what I said above.
> 

What you said above contradicts itself.

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