Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from the beginning
to end.
>

 I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point.
DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86
language cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
final halt state, thus is correctly rejected as non-halting.
 

But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does that, and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD is "completed" to contain that same code.
Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program, and then when we make DDD be the program that calls it, then when you try to define some other version of HHH that doesn't do that, it won't be given that same DDD, as that DDD will have a dfferent HHH that it will call.
Your problem is your definition of your input is just incorrect, as it isn't the representation of a PROGRAM, as a program includes *ALL* the code it uses, and thus to be a repreentation for a program, it needs to include the code of the HHH that it calls.
Your problem with this, it is makes clear that each of your HHH get DIFFERENT inputs, which breaks your arguement.
And thus you misdefine the input, which just means that *NO* HHH can correctly simulate that input, as it isn't a program to be simulatable, and thus your argument is a lie based on a category error.
Sorry, you blew you work up in smoke as it burns up in that lake of fire that you are securing your ticket to by your lies.