Sujet : Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish)
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. Jun 2024, 22:17:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3vpsg$39ri6$12@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/7/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>
If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
verified facts ....
>
You should stop swearing. "Verified facts" has a meaning,
Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
they dishonestly deflect.
It MIGHT be a fact, but it hasn't been "Verified" as in a formal process that certifies a statement to be true, or that it has been actually formally proven.
Pointing out that it is MEANINGLESS is not a "dishonest" deflectin.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
Which is just an admittion that you HH isn't even claiming to be a Halt Decider, as a Halt Decider *IS* required to report on the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) from the definition of the problem.
So. I guess we can wrap all this up as you are just admitting that nothing you have been talking about has actually be based on the actual Halting Problem, and you have been just spamming the group with attempts to prove your POOP, which disguising it as sort of like the Halting Problem.
…