Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?

Subject	Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?
Newsgroups	comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
References	(2 earlier) <sJmdnbZKbOK5GRf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <nMxiK.4886$xZtb.2948@fx41.iad> <o4qdncfJsIB2Nhf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <kKyiK.24175$5fVf.14299@fx09.iad> <CaOdnfv6_uXMJBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From	Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID	<TYyiK.4178$lut9.20@fx99.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date	2022-05-22 18:39 -0400

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/22/22 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 5:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/22 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/22 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==0 is easily verified as correct by reverse 
>>>>>>> engineering what the behavior of the input to H(P,P) would be if 
>>>>>>> we assume that H performs a pure x86 emulation of its input. The 
>>>>>>> x86 source-code of P specifies everything that we need to know to 
>>>>>>> do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are doing an analysis based on the assumption that an H 
>>>>>> CAN correct simulate its input AND answer at the same time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until your prove that such an H can exist, you need to be very 
>>>>>> careful what you derive from this analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is dead obvious that when H(P,P) correctly emulates its input 
>>>>>>> that the first 7 instructions of P are emulated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is also dead obvious that when P calls H(P,P) that H emulates 
>>>>>>> the first 7 instructions of P again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that wouldn't actually happen!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P calls H, so H needs to emulate the code of H since that is what 
>>>>>> is actually executing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is a "Correct Simulation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is true, none-the-less we don't need to actually see the 
>>>>> 237 pages of the emulation of H to know that this H must also 
>>>>> emulate the first 7 instructions of P.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and then the top level H aborts,
>>>
>>>
>>> *We are not even discussing that part yet. *
>>
>> But it is a fundamental
>>
>>> *All that we are doing is verifying this this trace is correct. *
>>
>> Which it isn't, and has been pointed out many times, but you seem to 
>> be to stupid to understand, or to dishonest to accept.
>>
>>>
>>> ***Even when we stay sharply focused on one single point at *
>>> *a time you cannot seem to ever keep from drifting off topic. *
>>
>> Truth is not limited to just a single point at a time.
>>
>> That is the way of the carefully crafted lie, that needs to be 
>> approached at just the right angle to avoid seeing the flaws.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>>>      machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>      address   address   data      code       language
>>>      ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp      // enter P
>>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push    eax           // push P
>>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push    ecx           // push P
>>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>
>> This transition NEVER happens.
> It is not a transition it is a function call.

Yes, to H, not P. Unless H actually calls P, and thus loses control and 
the ability to abort, the instructions in P below are never actually 
seen by the simulation thread that is simulating the lines above.

> I am sure that you are pretending to be much more stupid than you are.
> No one is stupid enough to disagree with a programming language.
> 

Nope, you are just so dumb (or dishonest) that truth doesn't make sense.

The fact that I point out the basic principles that you are ignoring, 
and you do not even try to refute them but just ignore them PROVES you 
are an incompetent liar.

Good luck with your legacy as a lying kook.

Thread

Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:00 -0500
  Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-22 19:05 +0100
    Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:23 -0500
      Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-22 19:26 +0100
        Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:30 -0500
  Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 14:30 -0400
    Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:42 -0500
      Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 17:18 -0400
        Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 18:24 -0400
          Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 17:29 -0500
            Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 18:39 -0400
        Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 01:59 -0500
        Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-01 02:11 -0500
          Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-01 12:31 +0200
  Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2022-06-14 21:33 -0600
    Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-14 22:55 -0500
      Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-15 06:40 -0400
    Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-15 11:19 +0300
      Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-15 04:58 -0500

csiph-web