Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:33:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <v5aid9$nd1b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:33:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="767019"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aIqip9PwYHkan0vzAWWsS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:raheNRA5j1jrIpnSHSB/3V5m0JE=
In-Reply-To: <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6166

On 6/23/2024 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I will not try any prove that 2 + 3 = 5, if you deny
> it then you are a liar.
> 
> Likewise for the behavior of DDD correctly simulated
> by H0. A correct x86 emulator already proved this three
> years ago and you still try and get away with lying about it.
> 
> We have gotten it down to this ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE
> THAT MY PROOF IS CORRECT.
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT.
> Likewise for P correctly emulated by H.
> 
> typedef int (*ptr2)();
> int H(ptr2 P, ptr2 I);
> 
> int P(ptr2 x)
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    H(P,P);
> }
> 
> _P()
> [000020e2] 55               push ebp         ; housekeeping
> [000020e3] 8bec             mov ebp,esp      ; housekeeping
> [000020e5] 51               push ecx         ; housekeeping
> [000020e6] 8b4508           mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
> [000020e9] 50               push eax         ; push parameter
> [000020ea] 8b4d08           mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
> [000020ed] 51               push ecx         ; push parameter
> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff       call 00001422    ; call H(P,P)
> [000020f3] 83c408           add esp,+08
> [000020f6] 8945fc           mov [ebp-04],eax
> [000020f9] 837dfc00         cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [000020fd] 7402             jz 00002101
> [000020ff] ebfe             jmp 000020ff
> [00002101] 8b45fc           mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002104] 8be5             mov esp,ebp
> [00002106] 5d               pop ebp
> [00002107] c3               ret
> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
> 
> 
> 

It took me a couple of years to realize the key difference
between P(P) and P correctly simulated by H is that in the
latter case the call to H(P,P) cannot possibly return.

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