Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 01. Jul 2024, 03:03:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
THIS SEQUENCE CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN WHY PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUT IT?
>
>
But it does, just after H gives up its simulation.
>
You have even show that with a simulation.
>
>
Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
Liar Liar Pants on Fire !!!
 Are you forgetting this message:
 On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 > void H_Hat(u32 P)
 > {
 >  u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
 >  if (Input_Halts)
 >    HERE: goto HERE;
 > }
 >
 >
 > int main()
 > {
 >  H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
 > }
 >
 >
 > _H_Hat()
 > [00000b98](01)  55                      push ebp
 > [00000b99](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
 >
[00000b9b](01)  51                      push ecx
 > [00000b9c](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > [00000b9f](01)  50                      push eax
 > [00000ba0](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > [00000ba3](01)  51                      push ecx
 > [00000ba4](05)  e88ffdffff              call 00000938
 > [00000ba9](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08
 > [00000bac](03)  8945fc                  mov [ebp-04],eax
 > [00000baf](04)  837dfc00                cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
 > [00000bb3](02)  7402                    jz 00000bb7
 > [00000bb5](02)  ebfe                    jmp 00000bb5
 > [00000bb7](02)  8be5                    mov esp,ebp
 > [00000bb9](01)  5d                      pop ebp
 > [00000bba](01)  c3                      ret
 > Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
 >
 > _main()
 > [00000bc8](01)  55                      push ebp
 > [00000bc9](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
 > [00000bcb](05)  68980b0000          push 00000b98
 > [00000bd0](05)  e8c3ffffff              call 00000b98
 > [00000bd5](03)  83c404                  add esp,+04
 > [00000bd8](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax
 > [00000bda](01)  5d                      pop ebp
 > [00000bdb](01)  c3                      ret
 > Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
 >
 > ===============================
 > ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05)  68980b0000 push 00000b98
 > ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05)  e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
 > ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03)  8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
 > ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03)  8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03)  8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is processed below:
  > ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03)  83c408     add esp,+08
 > ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03)  8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
 > ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04)  837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
 > ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02)  7402       jz 00000bb7
 > ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02)  8be5       mov esp,ebp
 > ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01)  5d         pop ebp
 > ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01)  c3         ret
 > ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03)  83c404     add esp,+04
 > ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02)  33c0       xor eax,eax
 > ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01)  5d         pop ebp
 > ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01)  c3         ret
 SEE IT HALTED!
  > Number_of_User_Instructions(39)
 > Number of Instructions Executed(26567)
   
>
  DDD correctly emulated by HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates its own DDD that calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
that is either aborted at some point never returning or
hits out-of-memory error never returning
>
>
>
 But HHH doesn't "Correctly Emulation" DDD by the definition that provides the full behavior.
 Since *THE* HHH DOES abort its emulation of *THIS* DDD, then THIS DDD will return, just after this HHH has given up its emulation.
 You LIE by confusing THIS HHH with another machine you try to also call HHH, looking at a DIFFERENT input you deceptively try to also call DDD that is different because it has been paired with that other HHH.
 None of that other behavior matters for THIS DDD.
 You are just proving you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, but you MAKE UP fake defintions out of your IGNORANCE and lie that they are the right definitions.
  Sorry, it looks like you are fated for a Hot time in the future.
Your despicable lying strawman deception may work on fools
I am no fool.
I had to dumb this down because even the smartest
people here were overwhelmed:
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH at machine address 0000217a cannot possibly return.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 Jun 24 * People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language129olcott
29 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language23Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language22olcott
29 Jun 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19olcott
29 Jun 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language18Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language17olcott
29 Jun 24 i i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language15olcott
29 Jun 24 i i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13olcott
29 Jun 24 i i       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11olcott
29 Jun 24 i i         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language10Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i          `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9olcott
30 Jun 24 i i           `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i            `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language7olcott
30 Jun 24 i i             +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
30 Jun 24 i i             `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i              `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
30 Jun 24 i i               `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i                `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
30 Jun 24 i i                 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
30 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language103Mikko
30 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language102olcott
30 Jun 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language50Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
30 Jun 24 i ii+- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i ii`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language42olcott
30 Jun 24 i ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language41Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language40olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language39Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language38olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language37Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language36olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language35Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language34olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language30Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language29olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language28Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language27olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language26Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language21olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation7joes
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation6olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation5Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i  `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation4olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i   `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i    `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i     `- Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation1Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i       `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i ii        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3joes
4 Jul 24 i ii         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
4 Jul 24 i ii          `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged4olcott
1 Jul 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged2olcott
1 Jul 24 i i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language45Mikko
1 Jul 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language44olcott
1 Jul 24 i i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2joes
1 Jul 24 i i i`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott
2 Jul 24 i i +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language40Mikko
2 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language39olcott
2 Jul 24 i i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language34Fred. Zwarts
2 Jul 24 i i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language33olcott
3 Jul 24 i i   i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language32Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i i   i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language31olcott
3 Jul 24 i i   i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14joes
3 Jul 24 i i   i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i   +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i i   i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i i   +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Mikko
1 Jul 24 i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal