Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:16:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <35566fcb3fa6fdaf2df94555e2479a5c98e64a46@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
 <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
 <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
 <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
 <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
 <v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me>
 <2288e4246127981d23e02d28cfe9ac3a6a29aad5@i2pn2.org>
 <v66h8b$2qr6f$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:16:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; 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: <v66h8b$2qr6f$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5250
Lines: 74

On 7/4/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2024 10:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/4/24 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself 
>>>>>>>>>> correctly, you
>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>           int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>           int main()
>>>>>>>>>>           {
>>>>>>>>>>             return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does
>>>>>>>>>> not return.
>>>>>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.
>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
>>>>>>>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
>>>>>>>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort.
>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
>>>>>> abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. 
>>>>> It is
>>>>> stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
>>>> because that part isn’t simulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>>>
>>
>> And, since it does (since you claim HHH(DDD) is correct in returning 
>> non-halting) the all do, and thus DDD halts.
>>
> 
> *No you are stupidly wrong*
> This the same same as saying the when everyone in
> a foot race is in single file and 15 feet behind
> the one in front of them that everyone will come
> in first place.
> 
> 
Nope, and the fact that you think bad metaphores can be a proof just 
shows how little you understand about logic.,

You are just cementing your proof of your stupidity for all time.

And you have KILLED any chance that any of your ideas, even if they had 
some merit, will ever be looked at.