Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:09:03 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <116cb41843f55511cf8fa5c2216083136e50c976@i2pn2.org> <624e9a80190b25bac34b8e9ddf095ae1c4aa65d6@i2pn2.org> <5aeaac6d89bca36e2e2564a2e60b6ed346839aab@i2pn2.org> <194ac945e5d201e9e82279156a4cd93bf55dcb1c@i2pn2.org> <3fd8b24c808a19e3669680c81bf4272902a7cc7a@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 22:09:03 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2897735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5710 Lines: 105 On 8/17/24 5:43 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > But, that also means that you have agreed that this only hold is HHH doesn't EVER abort its emulaiton, and thus when you change HHH to try to be a decider, that answer no longer holds, because we have a different DDD. So, you can't try to play games with the unless it aborts its emulation clause.