Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #107683
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? |
| Date | 2024-06-23 14:22 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v59p54$smd5$3@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <v57p3o$9d8$1@dont-email.me> <v57q42$onl4$15@i2pn2.org> <v585qp$5ski$3@dont-email.me> <v590sn$rmf0$2@i2pn2.org> <v598f2$brmn$6@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/23/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/23/2024 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/22/24 11:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/22/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/22/24 8:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 3:01 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:35:59 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD >>>>>>>>> correctly >>>>>>>>> simulated by H0 according to the definition of the semantics of >>>>>>>>> the x86 >>>>>>>>> programming language. >>>>>>>> The correct measure is the behaviour of DDD itself. Any old >>>>>>>> simulator can >>>>>>>> do it, but H0 specifically can't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H0 has libx86emu embedded within it. >>>>>>> Several decades of development effort went into that. >>>>>> >>>>>> But does it use it right? >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, part of your problem is that you try to change the >>>>>> quesiton, and the right answer to the wrong question can be the >>>>>> wrong answer for the right question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your inability to get the required trace out makes me think you >>>>>> aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing. >>>>> >>>>> It has been correct and proven correct for more than three >>>>> years yet damned liars here still deny it. >>>> >>>> Then you could show the trace. >>>> >>>> But you can't, so you are just a LIAR. >>>> >>>> One issue is that three years ago, your were not as insistant on the >>>> x86 simulation, which gave you a bit more room to argue about >>>> equivalences (which you could never actually establish). By x86, you >>>> HAVE to trace from the pathological program into the decider and >>>> then show the steps in the decider to try to show your claim. >>>> >>> >>> Anyone that understands this knows that the call to H0(DDD) >>> from DDD correctly simulated by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >> And who cares about that. >> >> All that shows is that H0 correctly simulating this input does >> determine the actual behavior of the input. >> >> Its correct simulation by H0 might not return, but its complete and >> correct simulation, as does its direct running does. >> >>> >>> That you have lied about this for three years makes you >>> look ridiculously foolish and might get you condemned to Hell. >> >> Nope, might get you there, or you might have already had you ticket >> punched. >> >> >> >>> >>> Those that lie about climate change destroying the planet >>> for a few extra bucks probably do deserve 1000 years in Hell. >>> I myself would forgive you, yet not them. >> >> And I am not one of those, but it seems you like to use the same sort >> of logic, so you are supporting them. >> >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>> [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] >>> >>>> The problem is that then the ability for the decider being simulated >>>> to decide to stop its own simulation becomes evident, so you can't >>>> show that it never will. >>>> >>> >>> It is only the freaking ordinary infinite recursion behavior pattern. >>> I don't believe that you are too stupid to understand this. >>> If not stupid then evil. >>> >> >> Nope. becasue there is a conditional operation in the loop, that which >> is in H0. >> >> Your arguemnt is based on the LIE that H0 isn't responsible for >> correctly deciding on what H0 will do. > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH0 > [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. > > Likewise according to the semantics of arithmetic for > decimal integers: 2 + 3 = 5. > > Anyone disagreeing with these two statements is WRONG. > NOo, if you REALLY mean just can HHH0 simulate this input to a final state, the answer is WHO CARES. But I will put out a few comments on errors in your presentation\. First, if you ONLY have the bytes presented, then the answer becomes trivial, as H0 HAS to stop emulating when it gets to the call instruction, as there is no data at address 000015d2 defined to simulate. This means you need to fix your problem statement to include the instructions of HHH0, and everything that it calls as part of the "input", or your question isn't the one you mean to be asking. Of course, this means that each HHH0 that you try, is processing a DIFFERENT input, so you can't argue from one about the behavior of a different one. Second, you forgot to specify what HHH0 has as requirements. Once you include its code, so can simulate it, the "non-pure" function tricks allow it to correctly simulate to the return instruction. Reminder, you complain when we point out assumptions made on previous statements that you didn't want to carry forward, so you can't also complain about us forgetting about requirements that you didn't bring forward. If you want to pull in the past, we can just point out that we KNOW you are talking about a Halt Decider, and that your question is the wrong question for a Halt decider. So, your statement is wrong for two logical reasons as described above, so your statement that anyone who disagrees is wrong is just wrong. You don't know how to properly state a problem. The last point to make, is that this is NOT a "proof" but just an argument claiming something should be obviously true. That may be a "proof" in the wild west of Philosophy, but it isn't in the realm of Formal Logic, which is what the field you are talking about is. So, you are making a statement, that when fixed to correct the deficits in it, becomes a statement that might be plausably true, but not proven. A proof can likely be made, but it seems that is beyond your ability since you didn't even try, Of course, without the second fix, the statement is just false, and without the first fix, the statment is meaningless, as of course you can't simulate to a return from a call that you are unable to simulate past.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 09:31 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 10:42 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 10:16 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 11:29 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 11:12 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 13:08 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 11:18 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 13:13 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 12:29 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 14:43 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:49 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 14:55 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 14:03 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:19 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 14:35 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:43 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 14:49 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 16:08 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 18:59 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 20:19 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 22:37 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:36 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:22 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 18:57 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 20:07 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 20:26 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 22:46 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:37 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:22 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:20 +0000
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-23 12:50 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:25 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-24 10:31 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 08:52 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:20 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-25 12:42 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:29 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 10:41 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:25 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:02 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 11:55 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 09:54 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 10:44 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:41 +0000
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 16:24 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 10:46 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:45 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:06 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 14:19 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-26 08:19 +0000
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-23 12:42 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:23 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-24 10:32 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 08:50 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-24 16:03 +0200
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-25 12:48 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:19 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 10:54 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:53 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:18 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 14:42 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 12:06 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:07 -0500
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 10:47 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:21 -0400
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-25 12:47 +0300
Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 08:54 +0000
csiph-web