XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/30/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/30/25 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/30/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/30/25 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2025 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/30/25 10:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/30/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2025 om 07:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2025 11:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, as proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by world-class simulators using exactly the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The infinity is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only in your dreams.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD DOES NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CALL HHH1(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no position to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call anybody else here a liar. Glass house inhabitants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing stones,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sticking to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous. Not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a most unwelcome change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *That not one single person here*
>>>>>>>>>>>> (besides those that I invited from the C groups)
>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides
>>>>>>>>>>>> willful deception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Foul mouthed lying on your part. It can be attributed to
>>>>>>>>>>> your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> self awareness and lack of technical ability. Everybody here
>>>>>>>>>>> but you can
>>>>>>>>>>> see that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not any lack of technical ability that determines
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or
>>>>>>>>>> cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a lack of technical ability on your part which is unable
>>>>>>>>> to judge
>>>>>>>>> whether such a correct simulation is possible. Everybody else
>>>>>>>>> sees that
>>>>>>>>> it is not, so further questions about it are non-sensical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea why are are saying the something
>>>>>>>> that is trivial is impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When HHH emulates: "push ebp" then HHH has correctly
>>>>>>>> emulated the first instruction of DDD correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulating a few instructions does not make the whole simulation
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulating N instructions correctly does mean that
>>>>>> these N instructions were simulated correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not that *ALL* of it was simulated correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> {
>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Neither was all of the instructions of the above
>>>> simulated correctly. When N instructions are simulated
>>>> correctly the repeating pattern emerges.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> executed HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, the first HHH simulated will abort the simulation before we get
>>> here.
>> Not at all. My encoded HHH aborts as soon as it
>> sees the pattern repeat once. It could have been
>> encoded to wait until it sees this same pattern
>> repeat ten times. That you keep pretending to never
>> see the pattern is quite dishonest. This might
>> cost your own soul. I would never risk this.
>>
>
> Right, so you LIED about what happens.
I had to emphasize the repeating pattern enough
so that you could see it. When I only show you
a little bit of it you pretend that it does not exist.
>
> And the first simulated HHH, when correctly (and thus completely
> simulated) WILL abort when I said.
>
> Again, all you are doing is proving your logic is based on LIES
That you call me a liar may by itself condemn you to Hell.
--
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)
|
