Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/26/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2025 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mei.2025 om 21:39 schreef olcott:

On 5/25/2025 2:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mei.2025 om 20:42 schreef olcott:

On 5/25/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mei.2025 om 18:39 schreef olcott:

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
>

>
Ad hominem attacks showing lack of counter arguments.

>
When you are objectively a liar then calling
you a liar is merely stating the facts.
>

>
Again a baseless ad hominem attack, showing lack of counter arguments.

>
I dared you to show my mistake your failure to even
attempt this sufficiently proves that you are a liar.
>

You only ignore it when your failures are shown and start again repeating the baseless claims.

 

Every competent programmer will understand that when the input specifies a halting program, including the code to abort and return, but HHH fails to see that part of the specification, then HHH has a bug.
I know you will ignore it again and reply with only ad hominem attacks.

 _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]
 How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
 

The problem is HHH needs to be defined FIRST.
And once it is, the answer is one more than that.
Until you define HHH, you can't have the DDD to decide on.
Thus, your whole argument dies on a category error, that your HHH isn't yet a program, and thus can't yet be a decider to be a counter for the proof.
When you look at the fact that no possible version can get the right answer, you have in essenced PROVEN the thing you are trying to refute.
This just shows your ignorance of what you are talking about, not understand the basic meaning of what a program is.