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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 21:13:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v59p13$smd5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a4qc$h08n$1@dont-email.me> <v5a5a1$smd5$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a657$hgsg$1@dont-email.me> <v5a7vs$smd4$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a8hi$hsjd$1@dont-email.me> <v5a9bi$smd4$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5abdl$igvh$1@dont-email.me> <v5ac1p$smd4$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me> <v5aebe$smd4$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v5aggb$jan3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:13:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="940453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5aggb$jan3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3969
Lines: 75

On 6/23/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/24 6:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what the freak I was talking from prior
>>>>>>> discussions unless your brain is so damaged that
>>>>>>> you can't remember anything from one post to the next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case that you affirm that your brain <is>
>>>>>>> this damaged then I humbly apologize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you insist on lying about this verified fact?
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [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]
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language
>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call
>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I won't say it can't be true, but it hasn't been proven, largely 
>>>> because it seems you don't know how to do a formal logic proof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liar
>>>
>>
>> Then where is the proof?
>>
>> And were is the simulation that H0 did?
>>
>> Failure to show where you ACTUALLY PROVED it just shows you a liar.
>>
>> Remember the parts of a Formal Logic Proof:
>>
> 
> You could disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 on this same Jackass basis.
> 2 + 3 = 5 ON THE FREAKING BASIS OF THE SEMANTICS OF ARITHMETIC.

But I seen proofs that 2 + 3 = 5

And that is done on a proof that uses the semantics of aritmetic.

The phrase "Semantics of Arithmetic" though, is not a proof.

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

Then try to prove it.

If the Semantics actualy do show it, then a proof, using those semantic, 
should be possible, unless the proof becomes infinite in length.

(Just like the semantics of arithmetic show that there is no number G 
that satisfies the specified Primative Recursive Relationship, but the 
issue is that in PA, the only method to show it is to test all infinity 
of the numbers one by one, so it isn't a proof, but is a true statement)