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 19:19:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org> <v5bt3m$v0vb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071320"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5bt3m$v0vb$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3608
Lines: 47

On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
> 
>>
>>>
>>> for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
>>> foolish that long.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.
> 
> There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
> you quit lying about this point.
> 
> _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]
> 
> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
> by H cannot possibly return.
> 
> 

And my reply, like always, So?

Since that isn't the criteria for Halting, what do I care about it.

You haven' PROVEN your statement, only made a bald claim about it.