Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: x86utm source-code proves that Richard continue to make this counter-factual libelous statement Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:35:38 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 Message-ID: References: <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:35:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45d09d337d8f7f50056d122f5780fe20"; logging-data="3908954"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6cxNq/wA835YdxJLVj6aQ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kOVi63z+z9P+AMWovSIiAYme81U= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6867 On 10/11/2024 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/11/24 8:41 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/11/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-10-11 01:55:37 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which >>>>>>>>>> are you? >>>>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone >>>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe >>>>>>>>>> Peter? You >>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely >>>>>>>>>> noticed >>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one >>>>>>>>>> sensible >>>>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of >>>>>>>>>> articles, ago >>>>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, >>>>>>>>>> but anything >>>>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth >>>>>>>>>> roughly what you >>>>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, >>>>>>>>>> not using HHH >>>>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think >>>>>>>>>> you are trying >>>>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No >>>>>>>>>> more than one >>>>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult >>>>>>>>>> you are, in >>>>>>>>>> fact, trying to help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more >>>>>>>>> progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the >>>>>>>>> regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody >>>>>>>>> off the deserted streets at night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine >>>>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language >>>>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what >>>>>>> you do) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- >>>>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the >>>>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to >>>>>>> return 0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>> exist never returns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that >>>>>>> never returns an answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this* >>>>> >>>>> WHAT PARAPHARSE. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>> exist never returns >>>>> >>>>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly >>>>> executed. or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me that you just said that: >>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH >>>> >>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH. >>> >>> At least one could say so because the exptession "the behaviour of DDD >>> emulated by HHH" can be interpreted in two ways. >> >> It can be interpreted an infinite number of ways when the requirement >> that the interpretation be correct is dropped. > > And, the only CORRECT interpretation goes by the DEFINITIONS of the > words, which means that "non-termination" is a property of a complete > program (which your "finite-string" for DDD does not express) and that > said program never reaches a terminal state even after an unbounded > number of steps, which this HHH's emulation doesn't do. > > So, you are just proving yourself to be a blatant liar. > >> >> The x86 machine code of DDD and HHH provides the single correct >> way to interpret DDD emulated by HHH. >> > > Right, and that machine code needs to INCLUDE the machine code of HHH, The source code has always proved that HHH does correctly emulate itself emulating DDD. Your negligence in making counter-factual statements to the contrary on the basis of not bothering to examine this source-code has always been libelous. Fully operational code is here. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer