Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #107933
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? |
| Date | 2024-06-27 12:18 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <v5e3df$1gco9$1@dont-email.me> <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me> <v5ggmi$21nkc$1@dont-email.me> <v5h1bo$24jbd$1@dont-email.me> <v5j2qu$2kgmo$1@dont-email.me> |
On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/26/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-25 13:29:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-24 13:52:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:25:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Simulating Halt Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct simulation per your stipulation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then where is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>>>>>>>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy
>>>>>>>>> emulation
>>>>>>>>> or correctness of emulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you point where in Intel's documentation emulation or
>>>>>>> correctness
>>>>>>> of emulation is specified you have no basis to say "WRONG".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. That is the same as saying that 2 + 3 = 5
>>>>>> is wrong until proven by PA.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim that 2 + 3 = 5 you must show some basis for
>>>>> the claim.
>>>>> One obvious source of such basis is Peano Arithmetic. Likewise, if
>>>>> you say
>>>>> "WRONG" you must show some basis for the claim. When the statement
>>>>> claimed
>>>>> "WRONG" is about x86 programming language, an sobvious source for
>>>>> such basis
>>>>> is Intel's documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
>>>>>>>> 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can only say that you don't know any disageement between them.
>>>>> Without a proof threse is a possibility of an unknown disagreement.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can believe you couls but I would not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal
>>>>>>>> integers 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Intel's processors seem to agree, too. But I havn't checked every
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _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 call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is shown above does not prove that the call to 15d3 does not
>>>>> return, nor whether there is H0 or HHH0 or something else at that
>>>>> location.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that DDD is correctly emulated by the
>>>> H0 at machine address 000015d2.
>>>
>>> There is no such stipulation in the above text. The C code specifies
>>> and a comment in the machine code claims that H0 is called but don't
>>> say what H0 does.
>>>
>>>> It is stipulated the the correct simulation is ruled by
>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language.
>>>
>>> That does not fully define "correct simulation" but may specify enough
>>> of it to contradict the previous stipulation.
>>>
>>>> *This conclusively proves*
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 *CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN*
>>>
>>> It proves nothing if no proof is shown.
>>>
>>
>> I will use your system of reasoning.
>> The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.
>
> You nave not shown the proof.
>
That is a stupid thing to say.
When you try to disagree with arithmetic that proves
you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.
The same system of reasoning that I use to show how
the input to H0(DD) does not halt.
*Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*
*language known to be true*
can stop all dangerous lies that can cause the end
of life on Earth and overturn Democracy with Fascism.
The body of formal or natural expressions of language
that are {true on the basis of their verbal meaning}
form a semantic tautology of self-evident truth.
If you disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 then you are an ignoramus
or a liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
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