| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
semantics of the x86 language
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:44:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
<v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
<v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
<v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
<v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
<v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
<v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 00:44:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="1719675"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 7668
Bytes: 7850
Lines: 151
On 6/30/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>>> THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>>>
>>
>> But it does, just after H gives up its simulation.
>>
>> You have even show that with a simulation.
>>
>
> Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
> Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
> Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
Are you forgetting this message:
On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
> if (Input_Halts)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
> }
>
>
> _H_Hat()
> [00000b98](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000b99](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>
[00000b9b](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000b9c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000b9f](01) 50 push eax
> [00000ba0](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000ba3](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000ba4](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> [00000ba9](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000bac](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000baf](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00000bb3](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> [00000bb5](02) ebfe jmp 00000bb5
> [00000bb7](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00000bb9](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bba](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
>
> _main()
> [00000bc8](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000bc9](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000bcb](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> [00000bd0](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> [00000bd5](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00000bd8](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00000bda](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bdb](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
>
> ===============================
> ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
> ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that
H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is
processed below:
> ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01) c3 ret
> ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01) c3 ret
SEE IT HALTED!
> Number_of_User_Instructions(39)
> Number of Instructions Executed(26567)
>
> DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
> that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
> that is either aborted at some point never returning or
> hits out-of-memory error never returning
>
>
>
But HHH doesn't "Correctly Emulation" DDD by the definition that
provides the full behavior.
Since *THE* HHH DOES abort its emulation of *THIS* DDD, then THIS DDD
will return, just after this HHH has given up its emulation.
You LIE by confusing THIS HHH with another machine you try to also call
HHH, looking at a DIFFERENT input you deceptively try to also call DDD
that is different because it has been paired with that other HHH.
None of that other behavior matters for THIS DDD.
You are just proving you don't understand the meaning of the words you
are using, but you MAKE UP fake defintions out of your IGNORANCE and lie
that they are the right definitions.
Sorry, it looks like you are fated for a Hot time in the future.