Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 22:54:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vr05po$ba1o$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvspf$59su$1@dont-email.me> <vqvte4$5ud7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr020l$9741$2@dont-email.me> <vr03ud$ba1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr05g4$c6r8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 03:54:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="de6d1f4cd6a715d770e5f2e07026b593";
	logging-data="370744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uFP8ltqaFJRyT1H7k52JB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9nOh5xBRKzMmTo2S/hJ56lY2XsI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr05g4$c6r8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5595

On 3/13/2025 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2025 9:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/13/2025 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2025 7:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2025 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2025 3:48 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the 
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC 
>>>>>>>>> PROPERTY OF
>>>>>>>>> THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>>>>>>>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't 
>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own final state no matter what HHH
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH1 with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH1(DD) does reach its
>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone was not a liar they would say that
>>>>>>> these are different computations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because one changes the code that DD runs and one doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> *Changing my quoted words is dishonest*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not when you gave your official on-the-record permission to do so:
>>>>
>>>
>>> YOU ARE A DAMNED LIAR
>>>
>>
>> And now you're lying about having made such a statement when the 
>> evidence is right there in black and white for all to see. 
> 
> *You know damned well that you are a damned liar*
> 


On 3/6/2025 8:22 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 3/5/2025 11:06 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Last chance:
 >>
 >> Give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
 >> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator
 >> and subsequently running Y(X).
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply (or within one hour of your next
 >> post in this newsgroup) will be taken as your on-the-record admission
 >> that they mean the same thing, and that additionally you officially
 >> approve of replacing the former with the latter in any of your quotes
 >> to make it clear exactly what you're talking about.
 >>
 >
 > Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above quoted message:
 >
 > On 3/5/2025 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
 >  > instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
 >  > Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
 >  > no third choice.
 >
 > And has not responded to the quoted message above more than 8 hours
 > after he made the above post.
 >
 > He has therefore satisfied the requirements stated above for admission
 > of the given statement.  So:
 >
 > Let The Record Show:
 >
 > That Peter Olcott:
 >
 > Has admitted that the following statement (Statement 1):
 >
 > DD correctly simulated by HHH
 >
 > Is exactly equivalent to the following statement (Statement 2):
 >
 > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
 > subsequently running HHH(DD)
 >
 > And has given his official permission to anyone responding to his
 > messages to replace Statement 1 with Statement 2 in any of his quoted
 > messages for the purposes of making it clear what he is claiming