XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:15 schreef olcott:
> 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.
>
As usual counter-factual claims without evidence.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
