Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:51:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 01:51:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1962627"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7886
Lines: 170

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its 
>>>>>>>>>>> input D
>>>>>>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would 
>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be 
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
>>>>>>>>>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation. Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
>>>>>>>>> or clueless I no longer care which one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist
>>>>>>> which calls this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process
>>>>>>> until aborted (which may be never).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are not 
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, 
>>>>>> because you don't understand what Truth actually means.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show 
>>>> Godel wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above criteria*
>>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" its 
>>>> input by the definition of producing the exact results of executing 
>>>> the machine represented by it,
>>>
>>> I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
>>> not make this same mistake.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, YOU are making the mistake. You just ignorant of the definitions.
>>
>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>> kernelization process
>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>
>>>
>> And the x86 language says the same thing,
>>
>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the 
>> Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>
>> Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.
> 
> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
> with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
> called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
> I really want to do the best I can to repent.
> 

But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.

Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?

The definition of the x86 language says every instruction wil be 
followed by the instruction after it (or jumped to).


Or is this just like the Diagonalization arguement you have effectively 
admitted was just a lie?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========