Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?

On 6/23/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

When the head line has the words "these verified facts" the message should
first tell what facts are "these verified facts" and who verified them
before any further discussion.
 

It is a verified fact that 2 + 3 = 5 according to the semantics
of arithmetic. Anyone having an opinion that contradicts this is WRONG.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
It is a verified fact that the call from DDD to H0(DDD)
cannot possibly return to DDD correctly emulated by H0
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Anyone having an opinion that contradicts this is WRONG.

What Professor Sipser has verfied below is not a fact but a criterion.
 

It is a verified fact that professor Sipser agreed with my
verbatim words.

On 2024-06-22 14:31:45 +0000, olcott said:
 

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>
To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does. HHH0
and HHH1 have this criteria as their algorithm:
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
>
   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

  ...
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer