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 21:05:45 -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 01:05:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="90952"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 23376 Lines: 486 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) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========