Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 19:59:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5d188$10m6p$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$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>
 <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org> <v5d0bf$162m0$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 23:59:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5d0bf$162m0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4913
Lines: 86

On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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 you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
> you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
> between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
> what a damned liar you really are.
> 

What is the LIE?

It seems YOU are the LIAR.

> void DDD()
> {
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [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]
> 
> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
> by H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
> Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
> the last point.
> 

And what do we care about it?

It isn't halting.

That is all you will get from me until you answer some of the many 
questions you have ignored, which all just prove you have been lying all 
these years.