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

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. An aborts emulation only provide PARTIAL information and not about anything after the point the emulation was stop.
Please show a reference that indicates that a normal x86 instrucitons will just stop running on its own.
You are just repeating a lie like you "Diagonalaization" lie. You think something must be true, but don't actually understand it.

 _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]

And we will presume that the code for HHH and everything it calls is included by reference, or your question is just invalid as HHH can not possible corrrectly emulate that which is not given.

 DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
 At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly
emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
 

So, DDD will not be EMULATED BY HHH to the return, but that doesn't say that DDD will not return, or even that a complete emulation of the input will not return.
Since "The Emulation by HHH" requires information not in the input, that means that it can not be the "behavior of the input" any more than the question "What is two plus?" a valid addition question.
YOU keep on trying to pass off your illogic as having meaning, but all it shows is your stupidity.