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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 19:07:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3c26e8b4b9716097c89348d18aa9e6cf3c426000@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
 <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
 <40c46fab1b847eb2f82a5df5acf5e4668055eebb@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oi28$1i745$7@dont-email.me>
 <a2f6c8d9e33a1006a2cfff9f50b576e257ef5cb1@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ojb5$1i745$9@dont-email.me>
 <141d89d2154841f2ead81119f47a3092ba4878a5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9olfq$1i745$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 23:07:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803751"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9olfq$1i745$11@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5024
Lines: 92

On 8/16/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>>>>> of the C programming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
>>>>>>>>> because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the 
>>>>>>>> computere science you claim to be doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We never get anywhere near the computer science because
>>>>>>> people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
>>>>>>> If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using a 
>>>>>> lot of words FROM computer science, which bring in their 
>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I get to the computer science only after people
>>>>> agree to basic facts. When they refuse to agree
>>>>> with these basis facts I write them off as dishonest
>>>>> or insufficiently competent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since your "Basic facts" include terms from Computer Science,
>>>
>>> If you insist on disagreeing with the x86
>>> language that proves you are dishonest.
>>>
>>
>> Where do I disagree with the x86 language?
>>
> 
> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*

Which just shows that you are a LIAR.

If you can't show where I lied, then it is a lie to say that I lied.

Sorry, that is just the facts and definitions.


> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> _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]
> 
> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
> *running unless aborted*
> 

But your HHH doesn't do that if you mean that HHH COMPLETELY emulates 
its input without aborting.

Putting false conditionals on statements makes them worthless.

Also, what you show is NOT a proper description of the PROGRAM DDD, and 
it is only PROGRAMS that can be emulated.

Thus, your who concept weems to be based on a category error.

DDD needs to include the code of HHH or it isn't a valid input.

Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are.