XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com
On 2025-11-27, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Right; anything but atually get to grips with some code.
> 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.
It is child's play to show that your claims based on
that x86 contraption are incorrect.
> When you resume any simulation that cannot possibly
> stop running to the exact same total machine state
No, only the state of the simulation is resumed, not
the total machine state.
Maybe you are not familar with operating systems.
When a descheduled or blocked thread is resumed, the entire machine
state doesn't rewind back to the time that thread stopped. Only that
thread's state is restored.
It is obvious you have gaps in your understanding of
concurrent programming.
> Ben Bacarisse would confirm that this one also
> would never stop running.
That is correct.
But the simulation of a D, which calls a H(D) that returns 0, is
terminating. So for that resumed simulation, we would find that inside
the simulation, the simulated H(D) returns 0 to the simulated D, which
executes its simulated return.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
