XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 11/26/2025 4:39 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.
>
> Maybe you are not familar with operating systems.
>
> When a descheduled or blocked thread is resumed, the entire machine
> state doesn't rewind back to the time that thread stopped. Only that
> thread's state is restored.
>
> It is obvious you have gaps in your understanding of
> concurrent programming.
I can picture his try into that realm. Dr. Race and/or crash a lot? He
most likely does not even know what a race-condition is.
>
>> Ben Bacarisse would confirm that this one also
>> would never stop running.
>
> That is correct.
>
> But the simulation of a D, which calls a H(D) that returns 0, is
> terminating. So for that resumed simulation, we would find that inside
> the simulation, the simulated H(D) returns 0 to the simulated D, which
> executes its simulated return.
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
