Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:16:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b8d7322ff586ee2776ced1a09090df787d889791@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me>
 <867e1149d7291cfd965b6974aa22f104635f38aa@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qdre$1tedb$11@dont-email.me>
 <d0755e4d97f2c3caebf57ebc856ed8078be3c7dd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qeed$1tedb$12@dont-email.me>
 <116cb41843f55511cf8fa5c2216083136e50c976@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qg05$1tedb$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:16:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9qg05$1tedb$14@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3966
Lines: 75

On 8/17/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 10:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, anyone saying that the above is something that CAN be 
>>>>>> correctly emulated by the semantics of the x86 language is just a 
>>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are inserting a word that I did not say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To say that DDD is emulated by HHH means that it must be possible to 
>>>> validly do that act.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are not going to get very far with any claim that
>>> emulating a sequence of x86 machine-code bytes is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How do you emulate dthe CALL HHH instruction without the code that 
>> follows?
>>
>> Who is the silly one now?
>>
> 
> No it has moved up to a ridiculous and utterly
> baseless false assumption that is directly contradicted
> by the verified fact that x86utm takes Halt7.obj as
> its input data, thus having all of the machine code
> of HHH directly available to DDD.
> 

And thus, ALL of memory is the "input" and thus any change in it renders 
that answer possibly different.

Thus, HHH to answer correctly must answer about the DDD that calls the 
HHH that is there.

Since DDD will halt if the HHH that it calls returns, an HHH that 
returns the non-hatling answer can't be correct about the DDD that calls it.

Also, you just said that "x85utm" has access to all the data, but your 
question is about "HHH" which is supposed to be a "pure function" and 
thus can ony depend on "its input", so you are caught in your own lies.

(Let alone the fact that your actual HHH fails to meet that requirement).

So, all you have done is demonstrate that you are talking with "forked 
toungue" and don't mean what you say.

Sorry, you are just burying your reputation under all your lies.