Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:39:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 284
Message-ID: <v5bsu0$v0vb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$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$10@i2pn2.org> <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:39:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="1016811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HlgU3muNDDCA0JPXtbpHe"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CwydEa9gfFMJPJYg9vxIxWJ563s=
In-Reply-To: <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12811

On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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]
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========