XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/26/2025 7:24 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 27/11/2025 à 01:51, olcott a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> Quite the opposite.
>
> Don't pretend to talk in the name of other people. SINNER !
Kaz is saying that he can "resume" a simulation
that has just proved that it will never stop
running to a different machine state to "prove"
that this simulation does stop running.
I am estimating that you are agreeing with
Kaz not even knowing that what he is claiming.
--
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)
|
