Path: ...!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: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:08:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v57b01$onl3$18@i2pn2.org>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v57837$onl3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v5792v$3t97b$1@dont-email.me> <v579gn$onl3$17@i2pn2.org>
 <v579rg$3t97b$3@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 20:08:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="810659"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v579rg$3t97b$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6074
Lines: 125

On 6/22/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 2:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2024 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating 
>>>>>>>>>> Halt Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation" 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>>>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the 
>>>>>>>> correct simulation per your stipulation, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then where is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't what H0 should be answering about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you and others lack a sufficient understanding of the nuanced
>>> details of the theory of computation is your mistake and not mine.
>>
>> No, it is that you don't have enough honest cells in your body to 
>> understand that you have to follow the requirements for something to 
>> say you are doing it.
>>
>>>
>>> The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD
>>> correctly simulated by H0 according to the definition of the
>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
>>
>> FROM WHERE?
>>
>> That is just YOUR LIE!!!!!
>>
> 
> Now you are trying to get away with disbelieving in the
> semantics of the x86 language and you can't even spell "from"
> 
> That you have the audacity to call me a liar over this
> might condemn you to Hell (I sincerely hope not).
> 

I call it a lie, because it IS one.

You claim a definition of the "Correct Answer" that has NO source but 
your own ignorant mind. That makes it a LIE, as there is a DIFFERENT 
definition that you refuse to use.

You claim you can show "behavior" by the definition of the x86 assembly 
language that is not there.

The ONLY correct simulation of the input by your stipulation needs to 
follow the address of the call instruction, but you don't include it as 
an explict part of your input, but it must be there or you can't do the 
simulation past the call instruction.

Once you do that, you NEVER get the "simulation" results you post, only 
something that looks a bit more like the long ones, but they are of the 
wrong simulation.

And, when we examine what the proper ones WOULD be, we see that H0 and 
H1 get EXACTLY the same trace to the point that H0 just gives up, so 
there is not difference.

So, where is my "Lie"?

Calling a false statement a Lie is not a Lie, even if the person 
beleives it, but only by a reckless disregard for the truth,

You have just shows yourself to be a pathetic ignorant pathological 
lying idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about.