Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 23:13:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 06:13:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe47412d5222aa086f42d5af46fe483"; logging-data="3217084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183STWrTfCeq/lsXPpHBZwL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JQvE9GprjbP6hg7HXOWeJ9JVK74= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6250 On 5/6/2024 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows >>>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the >>>>>>>> empty >>>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is >>>>>>> different from the actual execution trace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 int main() >>>>>> 10 { >>>>>> 11   H(D,D); >>>>>> 12 } >>>>>> >>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the >>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE >>>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞ >>>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their >>>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get >>>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this >>>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can >>>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you interpret >>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* >>>> *stop running unless aborted by H* >>>> >>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H* >>>> >>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth >>>> that would win a defamation case. >>> >>> >>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was >>> refering to, >> >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth* >> >> *I am going to make this my canned reply* >> (Until you change your tune). >> >> When you interpret >> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* >> *stop running unless aborted by H* >> >> as *D NEVER simulated by H* >> >> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth >> that would win a defamation case. >> > > > And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie. > And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you. > *It the argument that proves you don't tell the truth* *It the argument that proves you don't tell the truth* *It the argument that proves you don't tell the truth* *It the argument that proves you don't tell the truth* Message-ID: When you interpret On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* *stop running unless aborted by H* as *D NEVER simulated by H* you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth that would win a defamation case. > > Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was > refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar > by saying it is. > > You just don't understand what Truth means. > > Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair. > > Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be > forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then > I can stop refuting you. > > > The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess > that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just > admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer