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 19:22:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bfebe718cff21a0eadfd4187ebed240e1d545d40@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me>
 <b8d7322ff586ee2776ced1a09090df787d889791@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qmci$1tedb$23@dont-email.me>
 <624e9a80190b25bac34b8e9ddf095ae1c4aa65d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qneu$1tedb$26@dont-email.me>
 <5aeaac6d89bca36e2e2564a2e60b6ed346839aab@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qp4p$1tedb$29@dont-email.me>
 <f742232fdc754b4d1998fbe57d4cbc8b6d07579d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qqpj$1tedb$31@dont-email.me>
 <b1c1fc46c760d4764d3d1c529b4ae89b34ce69f5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qs0r$1tedb$32@dont-email.me>
 <c123b309a16a59970eda679a6d381a220999c0d2@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r04b$1tedb$35@dont-email.me>
 <194ac945e5d201e9e82279156a4cd93bf55dcb1c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r1u2$1tedb$36@dont-email.me>
 <3fd8b24c808a19e3669680c81bf4272902a7cc7a@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r3av$1tedb$38@dont-email.me>
 <dd1b2bfab5dca6151752b6daaf0e421bd56e18d2@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r5i1$1tedb$40@dont-email.me>
 <c438f76aa9e80012a17a73bd404eb06b793df352@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r7h1$1tedb$42@dont-email.me>
 <0eb835600c686774dd8e3a4a7a9aa3eed26c153f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9rakd$1tedb$45@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 23:22:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; 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: <v9rakd$1tedb$45@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8050
Lines: 166

On 8/17/24 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 5:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 5:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/24 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > On 8/17/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:>> On 8/17/2024 1:50 PM, 
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>> And thus ALL of memory is part of the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any additional details have no effect what-so-ever on my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Suure it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your argument tries to say that since DDD is the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to all of them, so its the behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just admitting to being a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Calling me a liar admits that insults is all that you have*
>>>>>>>>>>> *If I made a mistake then show that*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR THREE YEARS YOU ALWAYS CHEAT
>>>>>>>>>>> BY CHANGING MY WORDS AND REBUTTING THESE CHANGED WORDS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
>>>>>>>>>>> *specified as unspecified*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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, DDD can NOT be emulated accoreding to the semantics of the 
>>>>>>>>>> x86 langauge, because the contents of the location 000015d2 is 
>>>>>>>>>> not provided to be emulated, and will need to be emulated 
>>>>>>>>>> after emulating the call instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everything that is logically entailed by the above specification
>>>>>>>>> is included by reference. The assumption that DDD and HHH were
>>>>>>>>> not in the same memory space has always been ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I guess you accept that every different HHH generates a 
>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT Input, as that input, BY LOGHICAL NECESSITY includes 
>>>>>>>> all the code of HHH so it can be emulated, and thus you claims 
>>>>>>>> that "All the DDDs have the same bytes" is just a blantent lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is my only claim
>>>>>>> *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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not claiming anything about any bytes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, as I point out, that isn't true if HHH ever aborts its 
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is merely agreeing with what I said
>>>>>
>>>>> X = DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>> Y = HHH never aborts its emulation of DDD
>>>>> Z = DDD never stops running
>>>>>
>>>>> I said: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>> You said ~Y which entails ~Z just like I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to rewrite that a bunch of times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, that also means that you have agreed that this only hold is HHH 
>>>> doesn't EVER abort its emulaiton, 
>>>
>>> In the same way that
>>> X = when you are starving hungry
>>> Y = never eat
>>> Z = you will die
>>> (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>> remains true yet does not hold in the case of ~X ∨ ~Y.
>>>
>>> You never actually refuted (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>> You simply started with ~Y.
>>>
>>
>> Strawman, and category error.
>>
> 
> There aren't even any categories here:

No, you claimed:

  X = DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
  Y = HHH never aborts its emulation of DDD
  Z = DDD never stops running

  In the same way that

  X = when you are starving hungry
  Y = never eat
  Z = you will die

Which is a category error.

> I claim (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
> and you provide the fake rebuttal of ~Y.
> 
> *Here it is with categories*
> If is raining outside and you go outside
> unprotected from the rain then you will get wet.
> You say it is not raining therefore I am wrong.
> 

And, I will take this as your acceptance of this statement, and you 
agreement to your stipulations:

I will take your change of topic to be your acceptance of the conditios 
I put on my answer and from now on DDD is only presumed to be 
non-halting when *THE* HHH in the problem NEVER aborts its emulation, 
and THAT is what is considered a "Correct Emulation by the semantics of 
the x86 processor", and you admit that you are lying when you claim that 
an HHH that aborts is correct at saying the correct emulation of DDD 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========