Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:39:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 284 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:39:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438"; logging-data="1016811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HlgU3muNDDCA0JPXtbpHe" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CwydEa9gfFMJPJYg9vxIxWJ563s= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12811 On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2024 9:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/23/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 6:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know what the freak I was talking from prior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions unless your brain is so damaged that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't remember anything from one post to the next. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case that you affirm that your brain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this damaged then I humbly apologize. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you insist on lying about this verified fact? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't say it can't be true, but it hasn't been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven, largely because it seems you don't know how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do a formal logic proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then where is the proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And were is the simulation that H0 did? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to show where you ACTUALLY PROVED it just shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember the parts of a Formal Logic Proof: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You could disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 on this same Jackass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 ON THE FREAKING BASIS OF THE SEMANTICS OF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARITHMETIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I seen proofs that 2 + 3 = 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is done on a proof that uses the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aritmetic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phrase "Semantics of Arithmetic" though, is not a proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then try to prove it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not try any prove that 2 + 3 = 5, if you deny >>>>>>>>>>>>> it then you are a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you don't need to, as it has been done. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, showing how 2 + 3 = 5 would help show you how to right >>>>>>>>>>>> an actual proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise for the behavior of DDD correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by H0. A correct x86 emulator already proved this three >>>>>>>>>>>>> years ago and you still try and get away with lying about it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Just a fallacy of proof by example, which isn't a proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have gotten it down to this ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT MY PROOF IS CORRECT. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No proof, just means your statement is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TYPE ERROR. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise for P correctly emulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AGAIN TYPE ERROR. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Correct Simutation by H is not part of the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just proves your ignorance of what you talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr2)(); >>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int P(ptr2 x) >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P); >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _P() >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P) >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========