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.   
   >   
      
   HHH would not stop running unless HHH aborts its   
   simulation this proves that the input specifies   
   non-halting behavior.   
      
   > The DDD built on your hypothetical HHH that doesn't is a different DDD   
   > then the given to your real HHH, and thus its behavior is irrelevent.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> HHH emulates DDD and then emulates itself emulating DDD   
   >> until it sees that this emulated emulated DDD calls   
   >> HHH(DDD) to do this again.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > Whixh means you admirt that you "input" above is incomplete, as HHH   
   > can't "emulate itself" unless it is in the input that it uses.   
   >   
   > THus we have diffferent input when we have different HHHs.   
   >   
   > Your arguments to the contray are just admitting that neither your HHH   
   > or your DDD are in the category of Programs, as required by the problem,   
   > and thus your whole argument is a category error.   
   >   
   > All you are doing it just proving and confirming that you are just a   
   > pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, and   
   > doesn't care about that error, as you think lies and strawmen are   
   > acceptable logic.   
      
      
   --   
   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)