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 21:52:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="793163"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1pDrf1oGjo6ARdr6Qbg0b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kK5nSiY2KWY9d8Ppv3bRJwpKWjg=
In-Reply-To: <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9905

On 6/23/2024 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========