Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vg475b$3ks0i$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- equivocation? Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:43:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 192 Message-ID: <vg475b$3ks0i$1@dont-email.me> References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org> <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me> <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org> <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me> <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org> <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me> <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org> <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org> <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me> <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org> <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me> <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me> <ffd89b37bd90ad09952a020e8174a1264be117c1@i2pn2.org> <vg3via$3fui0$1@dont-email.me> <d108bb922d64595e6b4b3f46c51181753da42599@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:43:39 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f24840444c7ed29233b33314df4ac42c"; logging-data="3829778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DjS1ZvNBMxrMkVhbrdhYH" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Irk3S2sLB1RYz2qNb94WJPCWl50= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241101-4, 11/1/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <d108bb922d64595e6b4b3f46c51181753da42599@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 9604 On 11/1/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/1/24 9:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/1/2024 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/1/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/1/2024 6:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-10-31 12:53:04 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/31/2024 5:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-10-31 01:20:40 +0000, Mike Terry said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 23:35, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/30/24 8:34 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that ignorant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is not your ADD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD again? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you think it was going to play poker? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider. It might figure out that it is emulating an >>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating decider, at which point it knows that the decider >>>>>>>>>>>>> might choose to abort its conditional emulation to return, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so it needs to emulate further. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say >>>>>>>>>>>>> that if I don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so I need to abort. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to KNOW ITS >>>>>>>>>>>> OWN CODE. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // >>>>>>>>>>>> page 801 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to* >>>>>>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly* >>>>>>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I read, reread again and again to make sure that my >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. You seems to glance at a few words before >>>>>>>>>>>> spouting off a canned rebuttal that does not even apply to >>>>>>>>>>>> my words. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional >>>>>>>>>>> branches" excludes that code. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It does not know its own code. It merely knows that the >>>>>>>>>> machine address that it is looking at belongs to the >>>>>>>>>> operating system. I simply don't have the fifty labor >>>>>>>>>> years that AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs, >>>>>>>>>> could spend on handling conditional branches. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The stupid aspect on your part is that even knowing >>>>>>>>>> that its own code halts THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH >>>>>>>>>> DDD REACHING TS OWN RETURN INSTRUCTION. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, HHH is NOT part of the "Operating System" so your claims >>>>>>>>> are just a lie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO definitely has a deep-rooted problem with his thinking here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What PO does does not look like any thingking but more like what one >>>>>>> could expect from ChatgPPT or a similar AI. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have the 50 years it would take for me to replicate the >>>>>> work of >>>>>> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs. >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't matter. Even if you had you could not use it to prove your >>>>> false >>>>> claim that there be some defect in some proof. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There has never ever been the least trace of error >>>> in this verified fact: >>> >>> Sure there has been, but you have just proven that you are too stupid >>> to understand it. >>> >> >> That you rejected the statement of fact prior to even seeing >> it seems to prove that you are dishonest. > > WHAT "statement of fact". > It is still shown below. The fact that you rejected it before I said it seems to prove that you are a liar. The honest way to respond to a statement claimed to be a fact is AFTER the flow of text reaches that statement. Saying in advance that it must be incorrect because you believe that I am stupid is acting like a moron not an MIT graduate. > It was a statement of ERROR based on equivocation. > > Since you REFUSE to clearify your equivocation, by stating clearly which > of the meanings you actually mean, it just shows that you are > deliberately lying. > void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } _DDD() [000020a2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [000020a3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========