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

On 7/3/24 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 3:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:07 schreef olcott:

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?
>

>
Your Infinite_Loop does not apply. For a two cycle recursive simulation
>

 This says nothing about two cycles nitwit.
 _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]
 DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
 

And when aborted, DDD will then return, so HHH can not say that its input is non-halting.
Only that HHH can not POOP DDD. (where POOPing is assuemed to be the horse shit subjective criteria that HHH can not emulate the input to its conclusion.)