XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 7:39 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 27/11/2025 à 01:20, olcott a écrit :   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > https://hammadulhaq.medium.com/the-dunning-kruger-effect-and-llms-   
   > confidence-vs-competence-in-ai-e882866366de   
   >   
   >> I will fix this by actually adapting a C interpreter   
   >> to prove that you are a liar to anyone that knows C.   
   >   
   > You didn't react to my post about C :-)   
   >   
      
   I don't every recall you ever mentioning anything   
   about 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.   
   >   
   > Not too difficult. Your sophistries, incompetence and lies are obvious.   
   >   
      
   The chief editor of one of the most prestigious   
   computer science journals exchanged about 15   
   emails with me. The bottom line was that he   
   could not understand the x86 language well enough.   
      
   >> When you resume any simulation that cannot possibly   
   >> stop running to the exact same total machine state   
   >> Ben Bacarisse would confirm that this one also   
   >> would never stop running.   
   >   
   > Don't pretend to talk about what other people would say. SINNER!   
   >   
   >   
      
   I have spoken with Ben continuously for 15 years.   
   He knows this aspect of computer science quite well.   
   Perhaps better than anyone else here.   
      
      
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D   
      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never   
      stop running unless aborted then   
      
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
      
      
   On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
    > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H   
    > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines   
    > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* 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)