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

Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:14 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 11:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:53 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:22 schreef olcott:

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.
>
>

>
You told us that HHH aborts its simulation after two cycles.

>
The above HHH refers to every pure function that correctly
emulates one of more steps of DDD.
>

>
As long as there are a finite number of steps, there is no infinite recursion. The problem remains that HHH cannot simulate itself correctly.

 The job of every halt decider is to predict what
the behavior of its input would be, not to get
stuck in infinite behavior so that it can never
report.
 

Remember: "I am not talking about a halt decider, dumbo!"?
We are talking about HHH simulating itself.
I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
Stop talking about 'correctly emulated by HHH', or show the error in the proof.
I will not tolerate a change of subject. This point must be clear before we can proceed to the next point.