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: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:37:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <v598f2$brmn$6@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me> <v57aj7$pnu7$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v57odt$5d7$1@dont-email.me> <v57p0v$onl3$20@i2pn2.org>
 <v57p3o$9d8$1@dont-email.me> <v57q42$onl4$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v585qp$5ski$3@dont-email.me> <v590sn$rmf0$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:37:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d";
	logging-data="388823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19f8rv4DikRVr7DgBfPYD/5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cHYWyuErbNZyoWgfsRV+RAaG5n0=
In-Reply-To: <v590sn$rmf0$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6551

On 6/23/2024 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/22/24 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 3:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:35:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> The correct measure is the behaviour of DDD itself. Any old 
>>>>>>> simulator can
>>>>>>> do it, but H0 specifically can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H0 has libx86emu embedded within it.
>>>>>> Several decades of development effort went into that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But does it use it right?
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, part of your problem is that you try to change the 
>>>>> quesiton, and the right answer to the wrong question can be the 
>>>>> wrong answer for the right question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your inability to get the required trace out makes me think you 
>>>>> aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing.
>>>>
>>>> It has been correct and proven correct for more than three
>>>> years yet damned liars here still deny it.
>>>
>>> Then you could show the trace.
>>>
>>> But you can't, so you are just a LIAR.
>>>
>>> One issue is that three years ago, your were not as insistant on the 
>>> x86 simulation, which gave you a bit more room to argue about 
>>> equivalences (which you could never actually establish). By x86, you 
>>> HAVE to trace from the pathological program into the decider and then 
>>> show the steps in the decider to try to show your claim.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone that understands this knows that the call to H0(DDD)
>> from DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
> And who cares about that.
> 
> All that shows is that H0 correctly simulating this input does determine 
> the actual behavior of the input.
> 
> Its correct simulation by H0 might not return, but its complete and 
> correct simulation, as does its direct running does.
> 
>>
>> That you have lied about this for three years makes you
>> look ridiculously foolish and might get you condemned to Hell.
> 
> Nope, might get you there, or you might have already had you ticket 
> punched.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Those that lie about climate change destroying the planet
>> for a few extra bucks probably do deserve 1000 years in Hell.
>> I myself would forgive you, yet not them.
> 
> And I am not one of those, but it seems you like to use the same sort of 
> logic, so you are supporting them.
> 
>>
>> _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]
>>
>>> The problem is that then the ability for the decider being simulated 
>>> to decide to stop its own simulation becomes evident, so you can't 
>>> show that it never will.
>>>
>>
>> It is only the freaking ordinary infinite recursion behavior pattern.
>> I don't believe that you are too stupid to understand this.
>> If not stupid then evil.
>>
> 
> Nope. becasue there is a conditional operation in the loop, that which 
> is in H0.
> 
> Your arguemnt is based on the LIE that H0 isn't responsible for 
> correctly deciding on what H0 will do.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH0
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

According to the semantics of the x86 programming language
when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call
cannot possibly return.

Likewise according to the semantics of arithmetic for
decimal integers: 2 + 3 = 5.

Anyone disagreeing with these two statements is WRONG.

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