XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/26/2025 7:59 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 27/11/2025 à 02:47, olcott a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> on sci.math
>
> Subject: C Question for P. Olcott
> Date: 26/11/2025 ; 04:02 (CET)
>
(1) That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
(2) I only look at comp.theory.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> This is a very common evasive action to avoid abusive cranks.
After 15 emails? The problem is that the x86 language is
a dead language. I will reformulate using a C interpreter.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> And you misrepresent what they mean.
>
It was my own words that I spent two years carefully
crafting that he agreed with.
The first paragraph (that Ben and no one else agreed with)
has only a single correct interpretation.
>> 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.
>
> Same.
So you are the second person out of dozens and dozens
that agree with Ben? That is a good sign.
--
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)
|
