Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 2025-05-27 02:22:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
 

 *Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit*

And predict so that if the prediction is ever tested it is not found wrong.
--
Mikko