XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/22/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/22/25 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/21/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/21/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people
>>>>>>>>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars
>>>>>>>>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the
>>>>>>>>>>> kind. They
>>>>>>>>>>> are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times
>>>>>>>>> over by
>>>>>>>>> several people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your
>>>>>>>>> language, which
>>>>>>>>> could be construed to mean practically anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code
>>>>>>>> of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according
>>>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>>>> proves that this emulation is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie.
>>>>>>> Whatever HHH
>>>>>>> might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove" that the
>>>>>>> emulation is correct. To prove that is likely impossible in
>>>>>>> principle,
>>>>>>> that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [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]
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't a program, you need to include the code for HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Yet again your attention deficit disorder*
>>>> I have told you countless times that all of
>>>> the machine code for every function is in
>>>> the same global memory space of halt7.obj.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter what "is in the memory space", what matters is what is
>>> considedred part of the program, and thus part of the input.
>>>
>>
>> Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless
>> HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.
>
> But your HHH DOES stop running.
>
Yet you know that you changed the question to a different question.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
