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 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:36:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:36:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="767019"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18h/IKsikSEeWMhwH/PVT72"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wsXYwhG2qgxCooM6LELvko7mbxQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7043

On 6/23/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/23/24 9:20 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.
> 
> And you don't need to, as it has been done.
> 
> Now, showing how 2 + 3 = 5 would help show you how to right an actual 
> proof.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Nope. Just a fallacy of proof by example, which isn't a proof.
> 
>>
>> We have gotten it down to this ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE
>> THAT MY PROOF IS CORRECT.
> 
> WHAT PROOF?
> 
> No proof, just means your statement is just a LIE.
> 
>>
>> DDD correctly emulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT.
> 
> TYPE ERROR.
> 
> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of HALTING.
> 
> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about.
> 
> 
>> Likewise for P correctly emulated by H.
> 
> AGAIN TYPE ERROR.
> 
> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of HALTING.
> 
> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about.
> 
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> And, P(P) Halts since you have indicated that H(P,P) to returns 0.
> 
> VERIFIED FACT.
> 

A verified fact to a God damned liar.

The actual verified fact is that when P is correctly emulated
by H according to the semantics of the x86 language that the
call from P 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