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: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 12:12:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 130 Message-ID: <101h5hp$1v64q$1@dont-email.me> References: <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me> <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me> <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org> <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me> <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org> <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <1013tkq$2h8vj$3@dont-email.me> <1014ls5$2lsi8$7@dont-email.me> <1016hsk$35agb$1@dont-email.me> <101782n$39etk$6@dont-email.me> <598498aff364c9e1b90a9db1e18bd1e27a18b993@i2pn2.org> <101bt22$dklb$1@dont-email.me> <101cj31$hfof$5@dont-email.me> <101ehoe$11tu3$1@dont-email.me> <101f8h8$173bb$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:12:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5394674ad0d6242ba242d5149f7d426"; logging-data="2070682"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19o0uKXjCtn6fjppGkj+sGA" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:jxNMESkzbdZRUgyOIQvbE0IdF0A= Bytes: 7130 On 2025-05-31 15:51:04 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/31/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-05-30 15:32:48 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/30/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-05-29 01:37:49 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/28/25 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/28/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 5/27/2025 3:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott have to fight against. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against dishonesty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing would be left. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from the beginning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to end. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state, thus is correctly rejected as non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does that, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>> "completed" to contain that same code. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD() and HHH() never stop running proving that >>>>>>>>>>>> the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-TERMINATING >>>>>>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact that >>>>>>>>>>> DDD() will halt. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit* >>>>>>>>>> It is a tautology that every input that must be >>>>>>>>>> aborted to prevent the infinite simulation of this >>>>>>>>>> input DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. There is no need to prevent infinite simulation, >>>>>>>>> because the input includes DDD with all functions called by DDD, >>>>>>>>> including the code in Halt7.c that specifies the abort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless the outmost HHH aborts then none of them >>>>>>>> abort because they all of the exact same machine code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only when you also change the input. Changing input from a HHH that >>>>>>> aborts to a HHH that does not abort is changing the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It either every HHH aborts or no HHH aborts >>>>>> because they all have the same machine code. >>>>> >>>>> And if every HHH aborts and returns 0, then every DDD will Halt. >>>>> >>>>> If no HHH aborts, then no HHH ever answers. >>>>> >>>>> In both cases, it is wrong. >>>> >>>> And if every HHH aborts and returns 1 then every DDD will halt. In >>>> this case HHH is right. But in this case HHH is not Olcott's HHH. > > Abort must return 0, 1 is only returned when an input > reaches its own final halt state. There is no must about it. Either way the value is correct for some inputs and wrong for other inputs. > int main() > { > DDD(); // the HHH that DDD calls is not supposed to > } // report on the behavior of its caller. > // It is supposed to report on the behavior > // that its input specifies. > >>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH the first four >>> instructions of DDD are emulated. When HHH(DDD) is >>> called from DDD then HHH emulates itself emulating DDD. >>> >>> No matter how many times HHH emulates itself emulating >>> DDD the emulated DDD cannot possibly reach its "ret" >>> instruction final halt state. This proves that DDD emulated >>> by HHH is non-halting. >> >> That does not contradict what I said above. > > What you said above contradicts itself. No, it does not. You cannot prove that 0 = 1 from what I said. -- Mikko