XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/26/2025 6:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Great you finally admit that you are cheating.   
      
   No, you just admitted that you don't know how simulation works.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)