XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/26/2025 8:00 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 27/11/2025 à 02:42, olcott a écrit :   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > He is right.   
   >   
      
   He is resuming a simulation that he already admitted   
   that he conclusively proved is non-halting to contradict   
   himself and prove that it is halting by "resuming" this   
   simulation at a different machine state.   
      
   >> I am estimating that you are agreeing with   
   >> Kaz not even knowing that what he is claiming.   
   >   
   > You are "estimating" wrong. This is called hubris and lies. Both are SINS.   
      
   I have never said a single thing in this forum since   
   2020 that I did not wholeheartedly believe is true.   
      
   To the best of my knowledge I have not even exaggerated   
   at all or made any substantive error since 2020 in   
   the substance of any of my claims since 2020.   
      
   To the best of my knowledge the biggest mistake   
   that I have made since 2020 is my syllogism example   
   that I made today and Kaz caught.   
      
   --   
   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)