XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
   Anyone knowing comp.theory will understand this   
   is cheating.   
      
   --   
   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)