Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 22:31:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me> <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me> <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me> <v5aktu$smd4$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 02:31:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="940453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9138
Lines: 208

On 6/23/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========