Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/25 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mei.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:

On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>

So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and Peter
Olcott have to fight against.

>
Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against dishonesty.
If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too, and
nothing would be left.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction final halt state.

Why repeating this bug in HHH?

 That everyone that understands these things
sees that there is no bug makes your statement
the kind of reckless disregard for the truth
that loses defamation cases.
 In other words by objective standards: YOU ARE A LIAR

No, YOU ARE.
Your statements are based on LIES, DESCEPTIONS, and changing definitions.
Since your HHH and DDD are admittedly not programs, they can't do or have done to them any of the things your claim.

 

We know that HHH is unable to reach the reachable 'ret' instruction.
We also know that it not possible to repair HHH. It is impossible for HHH to simulate itself.

 It is also a verified fact that HHH does simulate
itself simulating DDD thus again you are proven
to be a liar.
 

NO it isn't.
It is some other thing, not the non-program that your HHH is, that does that.
After all, the code that you claim is HHH has an abort.
We only have a hypothectical HHH that doesn't abort that seems to correctly simulate the input given to it, but then it never gives an answer.
And that input, is something different than you DDD, as it has been "completed" by adding the code of that non-existant theoretical HHH that acts differently than your real HHH.
Thus, your whole work is built on a house of make-believe cards that you need to lie about.
Sorry, YOU LOSE, YOU HAVE CHECKMATED yourself and proven you are just a pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about truth, but just recklessly disregards the facts for his on fantasies.