Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:56:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v576oh$3soh6$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org> <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org> <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org> <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ju8f$222a$1@i2pn2.org> <v4k1m4$3f99u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k4mt$3fnqu$1@dont-email.me> <v4maeo$3vv3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me> <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me> <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me> <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me> <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me> <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me> <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me> <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me> <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me> <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me> <v576k7$3sg5o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:56:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="4088358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18g3RScNkAyLyeQgVYFttIV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kVtpC6ICQktck7jN6dgzB+GZ8FI=
In-Reply-To: <v576k7$3sg5o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5107

On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe.
>>>>>>>> It is not about belief.
>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot 
>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
>>>>>>> reasoning is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
>>>>>> for an error and finding none.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is
>>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a
>>>>> respected journal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong
>>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really
>>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of
>>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in 
>>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against 
>>> finding no errors in their rebuttal.
>>
>> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake
>> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you
>> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0
>> your reply will be ignored.
>>
>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see
>> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to
>> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3               ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not
>> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1
>> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior
>> as the directly executed DDD().
>>
> 
> Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. 
Incorrect and Strawman deception

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer