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? --- Richard seems to be
 willfully ignorant
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 22:35:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@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>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@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 02:35:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1962627"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4581
Lines: 77

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
> 
> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
> incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
> proves that it is correct.

Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the 
final end. An aborts emulation only provide PARTIAL information and not 
about anything after the point the emulation was stop.

Please show a reference that indicates that a normal x86 instrucitons 
will just stop running on its own.

You are just repeating a lie like you "Diagonalaization" lie. You think 
something must be true, but don't actually understand it.

> 
> _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]


And we will presume that the code for HHH and everything it calls is 
included by reference, or your question is just invalid as HHH can not 
possible corrrectly emulate that which is not given.

> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
> 
> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly
> emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
> 

So, DDD will not be EMULATED BY HHH to the return, but that doesn't say 
that DDD will not return, or even that a complete emulation of the input 
will not return.

Since "The Emulation by HHH" requires information not in the input, that 
means that it can not be the "behavior of the input" any more than the 
question "What is two plus?" a valid addition question.

YOU keep on trying to pass off your illogic as having meaning, but all 
it shows is your stupidity.