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: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:43:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v9r5i1$1tedb$40@dont-email.me>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me> <v9qdre$1tedb$11@dont-email.me>
 <d0755e4d97f2c3caebf57ebc856ed8078be3c7dd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qeed$1tedb$12@dont-email.me>
 <116cb41843f55511cf8fa5c2216083136e50c976@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qg05$1tedb$14@dont-email.me>
 <b8d7322ff586ee2776ced1a09090df787d889791@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qmci$1tedb$23@dont-email.me>
 <624e9a80190b25bac34b8e9ddf095ae1c4aa65d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qneu$1tedb$26@dont-email.me>
 <5aeaac6d89bca36e2e2564a2e60b6ed346839aab@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qp4p$1tedb$29@dont-email.me>
 <f742232fdc754b4d1998fbe57d4cbc8b6d07579d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qqpj$1tedb$31@dont-email.me>
 <b1c1fc46c760d4764d3d1c529b4ae89b34ce69f5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qs0r$1tedb$32@dont-email.me>
 <c123b309a16a59970eda679a6d381a220999c0d2@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r04b$1tedb$35@dont-email.me>
 <194ac945e5d201e9e82279156a4cd93bf55dcb1c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r1u2$1tedb$36@dont-email.me>
 <3fd8b24c808a19e3669680c81bf4272902a7cc7a@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r3av$1tedb$38@dont-email.me>
 <dd1b2bfab5dca6151752b6daaf0e421bd56e18d2@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 23:43:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zVqpQ+QR5SIGqGXHmLeF/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QlLwGaBh5NHbkBmJjYWm5tjSlng=
In-Reply-To: <dd1b2bfab5dca6151752b6daaf0e421bd56e18d2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5474

On 8/17/2024 4:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/17/2024 4:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/17/24 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2024 3:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>  > On 8/17/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:>> On 8/17/2024 1:50 PM, 
>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>  >>>>>> And thus ALL of memory is part of the input,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any additional details have no effect what-so-ever on my claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suure it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since your argument tries to say that since DDD is the same to 
>>>>>>> all of them, so its the behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just admitting to being a LIAR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Calling me a liar admits that insults is all that you have*
>>>>>> *If I made a mistake then show that*
>>>>>
>>>>> I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FOR THREE YEARS YOU ALWAYS CHEAT
>>>>>> BY CHANGING MY WORDS AND REBUTTING THESE CHANGED WORDS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
>>>>>> *specified as unspecified*
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, DDD can NOT be emulated accoreding to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>> langauge, because the contents of the location 000015d2 is not 
>>>>> provided to be emulated, and will need to be emulated after 
>>>>> emulating the call instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everything that is logically entailed by the above specification
>>>> is included by reference. The assumption that DDD and HHH were
>>>> not in the same memory space has always been ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then I guess you accept that every different HHH generates a 
>>> DIFFERENT Input, as that input, BY LOGHICAL NECESSITY includes all 
>>> the code of HHH so it can be emulated, and thus you claims that "All 
>>> the DDDs have the same bytes" is just a blantent lie.
>>>
>>
>> This is my only claim
>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>>
>> I am not claiming anything about any bytes.
>>
>>
> 
> And, as I point out, that isn't true if HHH ever aborts its simulation.
> 

That is merely agreeing with what I said

X = DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
Y = HHH never aborts its emulation of DDD
Z = DDD never stops running

I said: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
You said ~Y which entails ~Z just like I said.

I had to rewrite that a bunch of times.






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