Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>

Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
kernelization process
https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>
>

And the x86 language says the same thing,
>
YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>
Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.

>
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>

>
But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>

>
You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that it is correct.

>
Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the final end.

 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
 

And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop in the emulation.
Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a fully correct emulator.
You don't seem to understand the difference between EMULATING something, and deciding on its behavior.
I can add 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... + 99 + 100 and get the answer without needing to actually add all the numbers up.
But if I have a program DEFINED to add the input numbers, in order, then it needs to do that, and do all 99 seperate additions.