XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 5:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/26/2025 4:19 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-26, dbush  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with   
   >>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language   
   >>>>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown   
   >>>>>>>> with code.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea   
   >>>>>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already   
   >>>>>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state   
   >>>>>> conclusively proves otherwise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer   
   >>>>> able to engage with tasks involving code.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> void Infinite_Loop()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>      return;   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And the continuation of the simulation   
   >>>> at the "return" statement "proves"   
   >>>> by deception that infinite loops halt.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have no idea what you are blabbing about, and neither do you.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> We could simulate Infinite_Loop() until it   
   >> proves that it cannot possibly stop running   
   >> unless aborted, then abort it. Now to use   
   >> your method we can "resume" the simulation   
   >> at a different machine state.   
   >   
   > No, you fucking idiot.   
   >   
   >> This simulation is "resumed" at the "return"   
   >> instruction.   
   >   
   > No, you fucking idiot.   
   >   
   > "In other words you are trying to get away with   
   > disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language   
   > or the semantics of the C programing language."   
   >   
   > See above.   
   >   
      
   I discussed you (not by name) with Claude AI.   
   It is convinced that you must be a liar.   
      
   I will fix this by actually adapting a C interpreter   
   to prove that you are a liar to anyone that knows C.   
      
   I tried to do this with x86 yet this proved far   
   too difficult for even the chief editor of one   
   of the most prestigious computer science journals.   
      
   When you resume any simulation that cannot possibly   
   stop running to the exact same total machine state   
   Ben Bacarisse would confirm that this one also   
   would never stop running.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)