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: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:09:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c438f76aa9e80012a17a73bd404eb06b793df352@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0755e4d97f2c3caebf57ebc856ed8078be3c7dd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qeed$1tedb$12@dont-email.me>
 <116cb41843f55511cf8fa5c2216083136e50c976@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qg05$1tedb$14@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 22:09:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9r5i1$1tedb$40@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5710
Lines: 105

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, and thus when you change HHH to try to 
be a decider, that answer no longer holds, because we have a different DDD.

So, you can't try to play games with the unless it aborts its emulation 
clause.