| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 07:02:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me> <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org>
<v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me> <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me>
<v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org> <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:02:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1011594"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11728
Lines: 261
On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========