Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:43:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <v9q9dp$1tedb$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
 <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
 <40c46fab1b847eb2f82a5df5acf5e4668055eebb@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oi28$1i745$7@dont-email.me>
 <a2f6c8d9e33a1006a2cfff9f50b576e257ef5cb1@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ojb5$1i745$9@dont-email.me>
 <141d89d2154841f2ead81119f47a3092ba4878a5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9olfq$1i745$11@dont-email.me>
 <3c26e8b4b9716097c89348d18aa9e6cf3c426000@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 15:43:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ONeg+EO1bNUrj7Z0i5YQd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s/Yci2udOezMMvciqwkFVIsTy4o=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <3c26e8b4b9716097c89348d18aa9e6cf3c426000@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5606

On 8/16/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/16/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/16/2024 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/16/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
>>>>>>>>>> of the C programming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
>>>>>>>>>> because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the 
>>>>>>>>> computere science you claim to be doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We never get anywhere near the computer science because
>>>>>>>> people disagree with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
>>>>>>>> If they disagree with arithmetic we can never get to algebra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you aren't talking about computer science, then you are using 
>>>>>>> a lot of words FROM computer science, which bring in their 
>>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get to the computer science only after people
>>>>>> agree to basic facts. When they refuse to agree
>>>>>> with these basis facts I write them off as dishonest
>>>>>> or insufficiently competent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your "Basic facts" include terms from Computer Science,
>>>>
>>>> If you insist on disagreeing with the x86
>>>> language that proves you are dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where do I disagree with the x86 language?
>>>
>>
>> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
>> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
>> *Until you agree with this I will consider you as a liar*
> 
> Which just shows that you are a LIAR.
> 
> If you can't show where I lied, then it is a lie to say that I lied.
> 
> Sorry, that is just the facts and definitions.
> 
> 
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>> *running unless aborted*
>>
> 
> But your HHH doesn't do that if you mean that HHH COMPLETELY emulates 
> its input without aborting.
> 
> Putting false conditionals on statements makes them worthless.
> 
> Also, what you show is NOT a proper description of the PROGRAM DDD, and 
> it is only PROGRAMS that can be emulated.
> 
> Thus, your who concept weems to be based on a category error.
> 
> DDD needs to include the code of HHH or it isn't a valid input.
> 
> Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are.
> 

Please see my new post. I do not have the time to
deal with any less precise specification.
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth]


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer