Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 17:08:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 300 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 00:08:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032"; logging-data="1512541"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Jim+Tdpn2HqXUwQ6KnE59" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GPdf25HDLX4svCOVKfNhLp5N92Q= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 14013 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; >>>>>> > } >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they "interpret" >>>>>> *D is simulated by H* >>>>>> to mean ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========