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 21:09:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me> <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="781534"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Xe2WpQjmi9Chd6UhSjz2f"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g9joS/ww8RtKNsudY3ZO/R6ylTo=
In-Reply-To: <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7878

On 6/23/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/23/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Nope, actual verified fact, one YOU have even proven and agreed to.
> 
> SO, I guess you are just showing you are just a LIAR.
> 
> 
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========