Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 22:09:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 02:09:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2079859"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4411
Lines: 79

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.

"unless" is not a proper qualifier for the behavior of a program that 
has been defined. Sorry, you are just showing that you don't understand 
what you are talking about.

Thus, it isn't in the definition of "non-halting".

You are just  proving that you are just utterly ignorant of what you are 
talking about, filling your language with LIES based on using incorrect 
definitions of the words, and showing that you are mentally incapable of 
learning the basic facts of what you are tallking about.

Since your claim of what is non-halting is just a lie you pulled out of 
your ass, you are just proving that you are just a liar.

Until you can PROVE that you statements come from actual definitions 
from reliable sources, you are just buring you reputation in that lake 
of firs where you are just confirming your ticket to.

Someday you will see the truth, but it seems it will be after your final 
decison has been made, and you will spend your eternity going over 
everything you have said, trying to find a source of truth for them, and 
failing.