Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not. Sometimes it is important to say the obvious. Of course,On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:That is a stupid thing to say.
On 6/26/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:You nave not shown the proof.On 2024-06-25 13:29:50 +0000, olcott said:I will use your system of reasoning.
On 6/25/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:There is no such stipulation in the above text. The C code specifiesOn 2024-06-24 13:52:23 +0000, olcott said:It is stipulated that DDD is correctly emulated by the
On 6/24/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:If you want to claim that 2 + 3 = 5 you must show some basis for the claim.On 2024-06-23 13:25:36 +0000, olcott said:Not at all. That is the same as saying that 2 + 3 = 5
On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:Unless you point where in Intel's documentation emulation or correctnessOn 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:WRONG!
On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulationOn 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulationOn 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Then where is it?On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:LiarOn 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the correct simulation per your stipulation,On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attentionvoid DDD()And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
{
HHH0(DDD);
}
The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
to ALL of my words.
*Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
cannot possibly return.
or correctness of emulation.
of emulation is specified you have no basis to say "WRONG".
is wrong until proven by PA.
One obvious source of such basis is Peano Arithmetic. Likewise, if you say
"WRONG" you must show some basis for the claim. When the statement claimed
"WRONG" is about x86 programming language, an sobvious source for such basis
is Intel's documentation.
No, you can only say that you don't know any disageement between them.Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.
Without a proof threse is a possibility of an unknown disagreement.
What is shown above does not prove that the call to 15d3 does notI can believe you couls but I would not._DDD()
The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimalIntel's processors seem to agree, too. But I havn't checked every one.
integers 2 + 3 = 5.
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.
return, nor whether there is H0 or HHH0 or something else at that
location.
H0 at machine address 000015d2.
and a comment in the machine code claims that H0 is called but don't
say what H0 does.
It is stipulated the the correct simulation is ruled byThat does not fully define "correct simulation" but may specify enough
the semantics of the x86 programming language.
of it to contradict the previous stipulation.
*This conclusively proves*It proves nothing if no proof is shown.
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 *CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN*
The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.
When you try to disagree with arithmetic that provesThat "when" refers to 'never'.
you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.
The same system of reasoning that I use to show howTrue, but your reasoning is not good enough for serious use.
the input to H0(DD) does not halt.
*Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*Yes, as long as you don't provide that you have proven nothing.
*language known to be true*
can stop all dangerous lies that can cause the endNo, they can't. But they can help to figure out whom to trust.
of life on Earth and overturn Democracy with Fascism.
The body of formal or natural expressions of languageWhich is not very helpful.
that are {true on the basis of their verbal meaning}
form a semantic tautology of self-evident truth.
If you disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 then you are an ignoramusThat is a big if. But I know there are people who disagree with
or a liar.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.