Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 22:49:04 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 02:49:04 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="90951"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 25726 Lines: 531 On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========