Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 18:01:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 379 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 01:01:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032"; logging-data="1533957"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183PfXNyXEgmmFCsXH2q7JD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3icAxklzRBGTdIDU9OZR5u62BDw= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 16816 On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing better than Alan on this though he doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single clue about what execution traces are or how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You should read "How to make friends and influence people" >>>>>>>>>>>>> by Dale >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carnegie. You may not care about the former, but you sure >>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying >>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Hint: telling nasty lies about people is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> effective. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The alternative of disparaging my work without even looking at >>>>>>>>>>>> it is far worse because it meets the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> required for libel and defamation cases. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. There have got to be limits on what one spends ones time >>>>>>>>>>> on. You >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None-the-less saying that I wrong without looking at what >>>>>>>>>> I said defamatory. Saying that you believe that I am wrong >>>>>>>>>> on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility is not >>>>>>>>>> defamatory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have been maintaining false things over the years to such a >>>>>>>>>>> degree that >>>>>>>>>>> it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect brilliant >>>>>>>>>>> insights from >>>>>>>>>>> you. For example, you insist that robustly proven >>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theorems >>>>>>>>>>> are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x) >>>>>>>>>> 02 { >>>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >>>>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>> 07 } >>>>>>>>>> 08 >>>>>>>>>> 09 void main() >>>>>>>>>> 10 { >>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D); >>>>>>>>>> 12 } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Execution Trace >>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted) >>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that >>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Simulation invariant: >>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own >>>>>>>>>> line 03. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yet saying that the above is false defamatory because anyone >>>>>>>>>> with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can determine >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> it is true by verifying that the execution trace is correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you say it is false by either not verifying that the >>>>>>>>>> execution >>>>>>>>>> trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces are >>>>>>>>>> defamatory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one >>>>>>>>> disregarding the evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess I could file defamatory claims against you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal in all of >>>>>>>> your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were vigorously >>>>>>>> attempting >>>>>>>> to get away with the strawman deception change the subject >>>>>>>> "rebuttal". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But very close to my first part of the reply I indicated that >>>>>>> there WAS a detailed description of this at the end, and you >>>>>>> replied to that mention, saying that since your statement was >>>>>>> categorically true it would be easy to refute, and then you just >>>>>>> didn't do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully examine it. >>>>>> Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only >>>>>> the same ruse as this. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW* >>>>>> >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless >>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When >>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It means that >>>>>> > >>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) { >>>>>> > return 0; >>>>>> > } >>>>>> > >>>>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate >>>>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all >>>>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above) >>>>>> is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown above) >>>>>> >>>>>>> So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were talking about >>>>>>> and made yourself just into a liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not really >>>>>>> interested in an actual honest dialog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually true, as you >>>>>>> are going to just assume what you want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to wade through >>>>>>>> all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals" interpreted >>>>>>>> *D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated by H* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that isn't what distracted you in that message. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running >>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When >>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > It means that >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) { >>>>>>>> > return 0; >>>>>>>> > } ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========