Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the
 semantics of the x86 language
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:31:10 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <v648tv$29pag$9@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5tgvj$utcb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5u8c9$12udb$1@dont-email.me> <v608ft$1hqo6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61hoo$1og2o$1@dont-email.me> <v61k27$1oec9$3@dont-email.me>
 <v61li2$1p1uo$2@dont-email.me> <v63205$23ohl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v63j94$26loi$4@dont-email.me> <v63sh7$28goi$3@dont-email.me>
 <v63soh$28dpi$4@dont-email.me> <v64327$29pc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v643gd$29t4h$1@dont-email.me> <v6452f$29pag$2@dont-email.me>
 <v645of$29t4h$6@dont-email.me> <v6469t$29pag$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6473e$2agfo$2@dont-email.me> <v6480p$29pag$7@dont-email.me>
 <v648f2$2ape0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 21:31:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac";
	logging-data="2418000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wsRhFHFD9fwKV+e9xVVZ0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5/WdeC7fNqo7wAtM9pUjOh2Hsic=
In-Reply-To: <v648f2$2ape0$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4736

Op 03.jul.2024 om 21:23 schreef olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 2:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:59 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 1:46 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 1:25 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 19:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 12:51 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> to repeat this process an endless number of times until aborted
>>>>>>>>> or out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>> Anyone knowing the x86 language knows that a program cannot be 
>>>>>>>> programmed to do two different things
>>>>>>>> It cannot do both run out of memory *and* abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
>>>>>>> set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>> its own ret instruction and halt. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly! Well done! This proves that HHH cannot possibly correctly 
>>>>>> simulate itself. If it aborts, it does so one cycle too soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My system of reasoning could be used to make a chatbot
>>>>> that would make all the propagandists look foolish even
>>>>> to themselves. The alternative is the destruction of the
>>>>> planet to earn a couple of more bucks.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not some little game that can be played for
>>>>> trollish sadism. It has consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate this motivation, but it does not help to make the 
>>>> simulation correct. Better try something that can help, instead of 
>>>> spoiling your time with something that does not work as you expected.
>>>
>>> That you lie about how it works does not mean it doesn't work.
>>>
>>
>> You are too soon with the words lie and liar. It does not contribute 
>> to a honest discussion.
>> That you hope that it works, does not mean that it works, even when 
>> your hope is based on an appreciated motivation.
> 
> You are essentially disagreeing with arithmetic.
> There is an arithmetic to the meaning of words
> and to the behavior of x86 code.
> 
> When I say 2 + 3 = 5 you are not free to disagree
> without big a liar. As soon as you disagree THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR
> 

Irrelevant. I do not deny that 2+3=5.
But if you claim that the x86 language says that a two cycle recursion 
must be aborted, then I know who is ignoring the truth.