Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #107945
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts? |
| Date | 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v5ku9f$1as00$6@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me> <v5ggmi$21nkc$1@dont-email.me> <v5h1bo$24jbd$1@dont-email.me> <v5j2qu$2kgmo$1@dont-email.me> <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@dont-email.me> |
On 6/27/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Why? because it is true that you haven't shown an actual formal proof,
just arguments.
> 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.
Except for arithmetic there are standard proofs that most people in the
field know.
You haven't shown one for your claim.
>
> *Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*
> *language known to be true*
Right, so were are they?
>
> 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.
But in FORMAL SYSTEMS, the only definitions you can use are those
defined in the system.
>
> If you disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 then you are an ignoramus
> or a liar.
>
Right, and if you disagree that since H(P,P) returns 0 that P(P) Halts
and thus H is not a correct Halt Decider, YOU are a liar.
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