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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 18:46:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me>
 <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 22:46:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2801625"; 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: <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3839
Lines: 55

On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
>>>>> the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
>>>>> machine address 00001c47.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I, since that isn't what I was saying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *To me that looks like you know that*
>>> *you have been busted in a lie and are backing down*
>>
>> no, YOU are LYING RIGHT HERE AND NOW.
>>
>> Prove that I said that the simulation by HH made it there, or admit to 
>> being a DAMNED LIAR.
>>
>> What I have been saying is the the DIRECT EXDCUTION of DD, and the 
>> CORRECT (and complete) simulation of the input to HH by an actual UTM 
>> will get there.
>>
> 
> That has always been the dishonest dodge strawman deception
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal regarding
> the behavior of DD correctly simulated by pure function HH.

But it is your talking about the "correctly simulated by HH" that is the 
dishonest dodge, as it isn't what the question is about, nor CAN IT BE.

Since, as you have shown, you can get a different answer for different 
HHs, they can't all be equal to Halts(x, y)

So, you do the typical dishonest trick of projecting your lie onto 
others to try to divert the attention from your own lies.

> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01       int DD(ptr p)
> 02       {
> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
> 04         if (Halt_Status)
> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
> 06         return Halt_Status;
> 07       }
> 08
> 09       int main()
> 10       {
> 11         HH(DD,DD);
> 12         return 0;
> 13       }
>