XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
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.
This simulation is "resumed" at the "return"
instruction. This "proves" that Infinite_Loop()
can reach its "return" instruction thus never
really needed to be aborted.
--
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)
|
