Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:54:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a3a063f67c3e2ec9f9715fd0490d641d4c1fa5a6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8n9qm$3ulus$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nseg$1n09$3@dont-email.me> <v8pust$icn0$1@dont-email.me>
 <jfWdnR_xHenKVC37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8slku$1gfnf$1@dont-email.me> <v8t1qn$1ilg6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:54:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1646586"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8t1qn$1ilg6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4734
Lines: 97

On 8/6/24 7:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/6/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-05 12:45:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/5/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-04 12:33:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination 
>>>>>>>>> analyzers*
>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>>>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>>>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *UNTIL*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
>>>>>>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
>>>>>>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
>>>>>>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
>>>>>>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>>>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its
>>>>>> own return instruction depends on code not shown below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates
>>>>> N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity.
>>>>
>>>> That is not stipulated above. Anyway, that stipulation would not
>>>> alter the correctness of my answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> In other words you do not know C well enough to comprehend
>>> that DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own "return" instruction halt state.
>>
>> You are lying again.
>>that 
> 
> I am hypothesizing. If you do know C well enough to agree then
> simply agree. What I said is a tautology thus disagreement <is> error.
> 

And, if it *IS* a tautoligy, then you agree that "Correct Simulation" 
means a simulation that doesn't abort, and that you have been lying when 
you say that all the HHHs that abort and answer did a "Correct Simulation".

Sorry, you are just proving how ignorant you are of what you talk about, 
and you make it painfully obvious that you are just a pathological liar.

Your logic has gotten so bad that the errors are just too obvious, and 
the fact that you just keep repeating the same disproven claims proof 
that you are just an idiot that is incapable of learning.

Sorry.