Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake and Liars
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 23:56:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d011e279a6207ff45d260f830b6c8c057f322c68@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me> <vqqq7s$29buv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqrin$28lh2$4@dont-email.me> <vqs9ck$2lqb2$1@dont-email.me>
 <833547fc4fcbf18f196b7198f221a665a1fa2da0@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt90f$2spcd$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 03:56:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4126778"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqt90f$2spcd$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5351
Lines: 99

On 3/12/25 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/12/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/12/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2025 02:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't 
>>>>>>> terminate. Look up "infinite".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. That, 
>>>>>>> as you are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you can't get 
>>>>>>> out of it. The whole point of the Entscheidungsproblem is its 
>>>>>>> universality. Ignore that, and you have nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0, 
>>>>>
>>>>> THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
>>>>> WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE WORDS WILL BE TAKEN 
>>>> FOR A LIAR"?
>>>>
>>>> Is that all you've got? Nothing on your function's inability to 
>>>> correctly decide on whether arbitrary input programs terminate, 
>>>> which is a ***stipulated*** requirement for the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Without that, all you have is loud.
>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>
>>>> Look up "infinite". You keep using that word. I do not think it 
>>>> means what you think it means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by every element
>>> of the set of C functions named HHH that do x86 emulation and
>>>
>>> N is each element of the set of natural numbers
>>>
>>> then no DDD of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever reaches its
>>> "return" instruction and terminates normally.
>>>
>>
>> WRONG, because "DDD reaching its "return" instruction" isn't defined 
>> by the HHH that emulates it, 
> 
> Thus the Liar Paradox is TRUE because it is ~TRUE
> Instances of pathological self-reference
> CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!!
> 


Non-sequitor showin your ignorance, and that you are just a liar.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity and a pathological lair.

Note, DDD has no "pathological self-reference" as it doesn't refer to 
itself, just to HHH.

HHH, if it is a program, must have DEFINED behavior for all possible 
inputs, and that includes the input of the representation for DDD. That 
behavior was defined as soon as the code for HHH was created and fixed 
(and until then, HHH doesn't exist).

Once HHH exists, DDD can be built on that behavior, and no 
"self-reference" occurs, as HHH can't "refer" to DDD, since it didn't 
exist at the time HHH was created.

Now, when we acknoledge that HHH, as you have tried to define it, fails 
to be a proper program, as it allows itself to look at memory beyond its 
input, and that DDD isn't a program either, as it needs to use code that 
isn't part of it, we have two non-programs combined into one program 
that could have a pathological self-reference, but that only exists 
because neither part meets the initial requirements to be what they need 
to be, so you whole system is proven to just be a FRAUD, as has been 
pointed out to you an uncounted number of times in the past, but you 
refuse to listen, as it would break the lies you need for your fraud.

Sorry, but people looking back are going to wonder how you could have 
possibly been so stupid as to seem to believe your own lies.