On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:07:12 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2022 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > On 6/19/22 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2022 9:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>> On 2022-06-19 16:18, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/19/2022 5:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-06-19 14:43, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> My whole system is now wrapped in 131K zip file as a Visual
> >>>>>> Studio project on a downloadable link.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see no link anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> André
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you sure maybe you didn't look hard enough?
> >>>> Maybe there is an invisible link between "131K" and "zip"
> >>>
> >>> If you posted it somewhere, wouldn't it be easier to simply
> >>> repost the link rather than make snide comments?
> >>>
> >>> Or if you don't intend to post the link, then say so.
> >>>
> >>> André
> >>>
> >>
> >> I do not intend to post the link very soon.
> >> Because reviewers here have been so consistently disparaging of my
> >> work they will be last in line to be able to have access to this
> >> code.
> >>
> >> When I boiled my claims down to two easily verified facts of
> >> software engineering and everyone consistently still disagreed
> >> then I knew that none of my reviewers were both sufficiently
> >> technically competent and honest.
> >
> > No, you haven't, because you can't actually verify them, just claim
> > them, because they aren't actually correct.
> >
> >>
> >> It is a very easily verified fact that the correct and complete
> >> x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) by H would never reach the
> >> "ret" instruction of P. Only one reviewer out of 100 reviewers in
> >> a dozen different forums over the period of a year would
> >> acknowledge that.
> >
> > ONLY if H actually does a correct and complete x86 emulation,
> This is the part where you prove that you do not have sufficient
> technical competence in software engineering.
>
> H correctly detects in a finite number of steps that its complete and
> correct x86 emulation of its input would never reach the "ret"
> instruction of P.
>
> H knows its own machine address and on this basis:
> (a) H recognizes that P is calling H with the same arguments that H
> was called with.
> (b) There are no instructions in P that could possibly escape this
> infinitely recursive emulation.
> (c) H aborts its emulation of P before its call to H is invoked.
>
> The proof that I am correct is that no counter-example can possibly
> exist.
void Px(u32 x)
{ H(x, x);
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
}

....[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
....[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
Input_Halts = 0
....[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
....[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
....[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
Number of Instructions Executed(16120)

It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided correctly.
QED.

/Flibble

On 6/20/22 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 6/19/22 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2022 9:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-06-19 16:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/2022 5:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-06-19 14:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My whole system is now wrapped in 131K zip file as a Visual
>>>>>>> Studio project on a downloadable link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see no link anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>>>>> Maybe there is an invisible link between "131K" and "zip"
>>>>
>>>> If you posted it somewhere, wouldn't it be easier to simply repost
>>>> the link rather than make snide comments?
>>>>
>>>> Or if you don't intend to post the link, then say so.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not intend to post the link very soon.
>>> Because reviewers here have been so consistently disparaging of my
>>> work they will be last in line to be able to have access to this code.
>>>
>>> When I boiled my claims down to two easily verified facts of software
>>> engineering and everyone consistently still disagreed then I knew
>>> that none of my reviewers were both sufficiently technically
>>> competent and honest.
>>
>> No, you haven't, because you can't actually verify them, just claim
>> them, because they aren't actually correct.
>>
>>>
>>> It is a very easily verified fact that the correct and complete x86
>>> emulation of the input to H(P,P) by H would never reach the "ret"
>>> instruction of P. Only one reviewer out of 100 reviewers in a dozen
>>> different forums over the period of a year would acknowledge that.
>>
>> ONLY if H actually does a correct and complete x86 emulation,
> This is the part where you prove that you do not have sufficient
> technical competence in software engineering.
>
> H correctly detects in a finite number of steps that its complete and
> correct x86 emulation of its input would never reach the "ret"
> instruction of P.

How can it correct detect something that isn't true.

SInce you have stipulated that H(P,P) "Correctly" returns 0, and it is
proven that P(P) will halt when H(P,P) returns 0, it is proven that
H(P,P) returning 0 is not correct, because the input is NOT a
non-halting input.

>
> H knows its own machine address and on this basis:
> (a) H recognizes that P is calling H with the same arguments that H was
> called with.
> (b) There are no instructions in P that could possibly escape this
> infinitely recursive emulation.

FALSE Criteria, pleae provide your sourc for this "rule"

FALSE Premise -> UNSOUND LOGIC.

> (c) H aborts its emulation of P before its call to H is invoked.
>
> The proof that I am correct is that no counter-example can possibly exist.
>

LIE. P(P) is. Since P(P) Halts when H(P,P) returns 0.

If H(P,P) isn't refering to the compuation P(P), then you have just been
lying that P was built per Linz requirements.

Also, lack of counter example is not proof of truth, and that just shows
you are just a lying hypocrite, as YOU are the one that says that all
Truth needs to be Provable.

That fact that you can't live with youtr own rules shows that you dont
understand what Truth actually is.