On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
[ .... ]
Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using.
This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.
It is also honest and truthful that people
that deny verified facts are either liars
or lack sufficient technical competence.
What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the kind. They
are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.
*One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*
On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH.
Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times over by
several people.
HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD
You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your language, which
could be construed to mean practically anything.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code
of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according
to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that this emulation is correct.
When this emulated DDD calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
all of the code of this emulated DDD is in the same
global memory space of Halt7.obj.
Thus HHH(DDD) does begin emulating itself emulating
DDD. It emulates itself emulating DDD until the
emulated emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) again.
*This is all proven right here*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
Because x86UTM is a multi-tasking operating system it
enables the context switch between the emulator and
the emulated.
The x86utm operating system function DebugStep()
on line 1638 enables this with its helper functions
SaveState(emu, master_state); // Saves master process state
LoadState(emu, (u32)slave_state); // Changes to slave process state
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/x86utm.cppBut it is a lie to say
that "HHH(DDD) ... emulating DDD" is a verified fact. If I am mistaken
there, just say who has done the verification, how, and when.
*The code has always proved this for several years*
After I have conclusively proven:
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
You frequently deny verified facts. You "deny" established definitions.
It has been established on this newsgroup that you have lied on it.
That statement is libelous.
It might be libellous if it were false.
That you won't even try to prove that it is
true by finding a single time/date stamped
quote of mine with any error in the essence
of any of may claims provides a weight of evidence
that I made no mistakes.
No one can even point to a false statement that I made, thus cannot
point to an intentionally false statement that I made.
I just pointed one out where you mendaciously state "One key example of a
... verified fact is ...", and then citing something which wasn't a
verified fact.
The code has proven it is a verified fact for several years.
More seriously, you told Ben Bacarisse on this newsgroup that you had
fully worked out turing machines which broke a proof of the Halting
Theorem. It transpired you were lying. When the topic came up again for
discussion, you failed to deny writing the original lie.
That is the closest thing to a lie that I ever said.
When I said this I was actually meaning that I had
fully operational C code that is equivalent to a
Turing Machine.
Feel free to cut-and-paste a time/date stamped quote
of anything that I said that you have construed as false.
I've got better things to do with my time.
If you call me a liar and cannot even point to a mistake
that is libelous.
Several times it has become apparent that your technical programming
competence leaves a lot to be desired.
I did make one key mistake when referring to
lines-of-code versus statements in C.
At one time you repeatedly posted the source code of a C function with a
syntax error in it, despite being repeatedly advised of this, and even
what the error was.
Yes I did make these kind of mistakes that do
not pertain to the essence of my claim:
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
The input to HHH(DD) specifies that DD simulated by
HHH (according to the semantics of the C programming
language) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
All rebuttals to this (including Ben's) have been
the strawman error of referring to the behavior of the
directly executed DD().
It is common knowledge that directly executed Turing
machines are outside of the domain of Turing machine
deciders. This means that no Turing machine decider
can ever directly report on the behavior or any directly
executed Turing machine.
The best that they can do is use a machine description
as a proxy for the behavior of the direct execution.
When HHH(DD) computes the mapping *from its input* to
the behavior that this input specifies it correctly
determines that the recursive simulation that this
input specifies is non-halting behavior.
Consistent honesty and truthfulness is what I have hoped for from you for
a long time, now. With it, we could have a productive exchange of views.
I doubt we will ever see this, though.
I would love to have this with you. I have initially
assessed that you may be very competent.
You may take it that I fully competent in C programming, amongst other
things.
Do you have at least a decade of full time experience at this?
Its not that hard to determine that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming language)
specifies the non halting behavior of recursive simulation.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…