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 ==========