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: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:15:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5403964e92fe16656c99ca01410352407d3c4211@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me> <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
 <vavfoi$12m8t$4@dont-email.me> <vb1hq0$1fgj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4enb$2rs5t$3@dont-email.me> <vb6iop$39hrf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb74m3$3b4ub$11@dont-email.me> <vbel4p$pko5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeoik$punj$2@dont-email.me> <vbh116$19c8m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlpj$1c7u5$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:15:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1176477"; 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: <vbhlpj$1c7u5$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4571
Lines: 69

On 9/7/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
>>>>> that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>>> x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
>>>> C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
>>>> the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
>>> that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
>>> an emulated HHH that never returns.
>>
>> There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
>> executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.
>>
> 
> I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
> do have different behavior within pathological relationships
> than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
> times in the last three years.

No, you have proven that you don't understand what the terms mean and 
what it takes to prove something.

If they DO have different behavior in a correct simulation, what is the 
FIRST instruction correctly simulated by the decider that differs from 
the behavior dirrectly executed.

Your answer of the call HHH instruction just proves you don't understand 
what it means to "correctly emulate" and instruction and that you are 
nothing but a LIAR that doesn't care about what is actually true.

> 
> Since assuming away the pathological relationship that does
> indeed exist is so ridiculously stupid I initially called
> people despicable lying bastards for doing this.

Nope, YOU sre the despicable lying bastards for doing what you are doing.

> 
> Now it seems more like people have been so deeply indoctrinated
> with the "received view" that you can smack them in the face with
> the truth so hard that it will knock them down and they never
> notice that you said a single word.
> 

Nope, you are so brainwashed by yourself that you refuse to look at the 
truth or learn the actual meaning of the words.

That is why you keep on "inventing" new meanings for words, so you can 
ignore the real meaning of them.