Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that claims this is not telling the truth Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:17:05 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 116 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: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 00:17:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="126bd7503554732891ee2e704ffb1b5d"; logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198Xq16Dp2R2z7P1NMbbEQK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:foyYGYb1qu5M/Ixja6ue0JTWRjg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6177 On 8/17/2024 5:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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, In the same way that X = when you are starving hungry Y = never eat Z = you will die (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z remains true yet does not hold in the case of ~X ∨ ~Y. You never actually refuted (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z You simply started with ~Y. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer