Path: ...!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: Sun, 5 May 2024 07:10:22 -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 11:10:22 -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 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 28903 Lines: 609 On 5/4/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========