Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.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 21:38:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me> <v5aktu$smd4$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me> <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:38:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="789554"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hQKqPF+b+Vx6rZvWrItS8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uK/nIFVmf7MYEcYkFe46h1kkvLE=
In-Reply-To: <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9577

On 6/23/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 ==========