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
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---SUCCINCT
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 09:26:52 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <46c9921e9ad206dc2bf178fda7b1d19f94f44829@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <4524b9dcb46740847649bcb907a87acbac1d00da@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5e3t$2tvu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b99b4dfe14296c74eeebd76b13369648e9e6059@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5fsd$2tvu0$2@dont-email.me>
 <a39b254c0aa0260206e0c21419993ea84007f765@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5hmo$2v2hi$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ee04a00a23875dac3d741882bffbdcb81dd7acb@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5ils$2v8v9$1@dont-email.me>
 <9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
 <vh5m5h$191h$1@news.muc.de> <vh5mh7$301h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e7d357b9e3959bb8394d9bf45e6161a7c9145aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vh6c68$33nek$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a0894cfd14377a9fcf89638c7705420507f571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vh8pas$3lqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <463966aff896041f1ea77478554251554a6ef456@i2pn2.org>
 <vh93nj$3r8ig$1@dont-email.me>
 <9c41d73f0cda8f10434729bdbc0963a95582bd5d@i2pn2.org>
 <vh957l$3rg98$1@dont-email.me>
 <ae415d1a0f07aa76d9a0dd2ef1078ffeb9b03b32@i2pn2.org>
 <vh96c2$3rlks$1@dont-email.me>
 <20671ab52fff727d5bcad5a85db05c68774fbbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:26:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2742041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vha936$1md4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9827
Lines: 205

On 11/16/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/16/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/15/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2024 10:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/24 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2024 2:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are weasel words?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words whose precise meaning is difficult/impossible to pin 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately so.  Politicians use these all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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 emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the emulation by HHH is NOT the DEFINITION of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that HHH is suppoded to be reporting on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right and likewise ZFC is "supposed to include" sets that
>>>>>>>>>>> are members of themselves. Thus according to your reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC is wrong because is directly disobeys the dogma of
>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where did I say that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be halucinationg.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That behavior that HHH is supposed to be reporting on is the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual direct exectution of the program 
>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the input, 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SAYING THAT HHH SHOULD STUPIDLY IGNORE
>>>>>>>>>>> THE FACT THAT DDD DOES SPECIFY THAT HHH MUST EMULATE ITSELF
>>>>>>>>>>> EMULATING DDD
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD doesn't "say" anything, it is a program that defines how 
>>>>>>>>>> it will run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
>>>>>>>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "emulate" instruction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must do as 
>>>>>>>> it is programmed, and that the correct emulation of it will do 
>>>>>>>> EXACTLY the same thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When HHH <is> an x86 emulator
>>>>>>> (are you too stupid to remember this?) Then
>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language specifies that HHH must
>>>>>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it *ISN'T* one if it stops its emulation before it reaches the 
>>>>>> final end.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it is you are just a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You got a source to back up your claim, 
>>>
>>> Full source-code backs up my claim you schmuck.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>
>> Which just prove that you are nothing but a LIAR.
>>
>> You agree, that "Truth" comes from steps from those basic truths that 
>> build the system, the Axioms of the system.
>>
>> Your "Source Code", is NOT an axiom of the system.
>>
> 
> _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]
> 

WHich isn't a complete program, so a LIE to call it one.

> The axioms of the system are the x86 language nitwit.

Which means that the above is an incorrect statememt.

By the "axions" you claim, the PROGRAM DDD, that comes from the Halt7.c 
file, is HALTING as it calls the HHH that does some partial emulation 
and returns to DDD and thus DDD returns.

> HHH applies to axioms to its input proving that DDD
> emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever reach its own
> "ret" instruction final halt state no matter what
> any partial or compete x86 emulator HHH does.

Nope, becuase there are no axioms like that to even APPLY.

As you have been told, your problem is that you seem to like just making 
up things you will ASSUME (incorrectly) to be true in the system without 
figuring out if there is an actual proof of the idea.

Your "Logic" is just based on LIES, just like your master and lord who 
is SATAN.

> 
> That most all that you have is lies and call me a liar
> on this basis might get you condemned to actual Hell.
> I hope not that is why I ask you to repent.

Nope, I make statements based on the definitions in the system, that is 
TRUTH.

YOU makeup statements with NO basis in the system, that is LIES.

That you can't tell the difference, just shows you are a stupid ignorant 
pathetic pathological liar.

> 
>> Thus, it can't be the SOURCE of your assertions.
>>
>> You don't even understand what you source code says, as has been 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========