| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 22:26:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 240
Message-ID: <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me>
<v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 05:26:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
logging-data="800586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wyVp90gZHRCGIfBXxPiq3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f/EYgF+JzZbRz3aR6LpC9qcctjg=
In-Reply-To: <v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10857
On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========