Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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,

 Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then
DDD() and HHH() never stop running proving that
the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-TERMINATING
BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED.
 

But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact that DDD() will halt.
"unless" is not a proper qualifier for the behavior of a program that has been defined. Sorry, you are just showing that you don't understand what you are talking about.
Thus, it isn't in the definition of "non-halting".
You are just  proving that you are just utterly ignorant of what you are talking about, filling your language with LIES based on using incorrect definitions of the words, and showing that you are mentally incapable of learning the basic facts of what you are tallking about.
Since your claim of what is non-halting is just a lie you pulled out of your ass, you are just proving that you are just a liar.
Until you can PROVE that you statements come from actual definitions from reliable sources, you are just buring you reputation in that lake of firs where you are just confirming your ticket to.
Someday you will see the truth, but it seems it will be after your final decison has been made, and you will spend your eternity going over everything you have said, trying to find a source of truth for them, and failing.