Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/5/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-04 12:39:09 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/4/2024 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-03 13:13:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/3/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-03 01:18:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.

>
Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.

>
This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

>
Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation is not correct.
>

>
If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
or clueless I no longer care which one.
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.

>
>
HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.

>
You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist
which calls this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process
until aborted (which may be never).
>
>

>
Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are not correct.
>
Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, because you don't understand what Truth actually means.

>

>
So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show Godel wrong?
>
Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
*Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above criteria*
>

Nope.
>
Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" its input by the definition of producing the exact results of executing the machine represented by it,

>
I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
not make this same mistake.
>
Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.

>
What makes you think so? How can you justify "probably" instead of, say,
"pssobly"?
>
The following contains nothing relevant:
>

Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
kernelization process
https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf

>
>

>
If you make sure to not pay attention than you you
won't find anything relevant. I searched for ["sipser" "x86"]

>
Finding that you present claims without support is relevant enough for me.
>

>
Knowledge of the x86 language is 100% complete support.

>
No, it is not. It might support your cliams a but if your writing would
reveal significant knowledge of the x86 language but it doesn't.
>

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 *In other words you are denying the verified fact*
That when DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language calls HHH(DDD) that
this call cannot possibly return.

But your HHH doesn't DO that, since you say it aborts its emulation and returns 0.
aborting the emulation is deviating from the full semantics of the x86 instruciton set.

 *By denying this verified fact you are affirming*
That when DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language calls HHH(DDD) that
*THIS CALL CAN RETURN*
 

it can. if HHH ever aborts its emulation and returns.
So, which lie are you holding to.
That you HHH is a emulatng Halt Decider that returns an answer for this input.
Or that HHH is a completely correct emulator of its input, as you imply by the claim that DDD can not return.
You are caught with your hand in the cookie jar and trying to use double speak to get out of it.
YOU ARE JUST A LIAR.