Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 22:19:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v145un$c30$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0oce3$1q3aq$4@dont-email.me>
 <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de> <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oh7g$1o3b$3@news.muc.de> <v0olhv$1sgeo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oobd$1o3b$4@news.muc.de> <v0or07$1tmga$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me>
 <v0r78v$hka$3@news.muc.de> <v0rd16$2k1bi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0t3uj$1iuj$2@news.muc.de> <v0tneg$37lgj$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de> <v10kkm$7k7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v11fqi$2tlr1$7@i2pn2.org> <v12mlh$i3tc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 02:19:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="12384"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v12mlh$i3tc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12842
Lines: 313

On 5/3/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
>>>>>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination 
>>>>>>>>> analyzer}
>>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it 
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
>>>>>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination 
>>>>>>>> analyzer",
>>>>>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // 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 }
>>>>
>>>>>> Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to 
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>> mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.
>>>>
>>>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>>>
>>>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>>>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>>>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will 
>>>> proceed
>>>> to L6 and terminate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
>>> specification.
>>>
>>>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of "understanding".  It's you that lacks 
>>>> understanding,
>>>> not everybody else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was true then four people would not have been able
>>> to correctly answer the question.
>>>
>>>>> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the program is
>>>>>> repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate that it will never reach the
>>>>>> final "ret" - indeed, it won't even get to the infinite loop
>>>>>> identified above.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the citation.  But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>>>> agreeing to. 
>>>
>>> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>>>
>>>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>>>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>>>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>
>>>>>> That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and
>>>>>> when,
>>>>
>>>>> Two experts in the C programming language and two people with masters
>>>>> degrees in computer science.
>>>>
>>>> Their names, please.  And the dates and places of their 
>>>> "verifications",
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
>>> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
>>> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
>>> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
>>> that I am correct.
>>
>> Since  I presented two counter examples, which you have not even 
>> attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are 
>> nothing but a LIAR.
>>
> 
> FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO INTENTIONALLY
> MISINTERPRET MY WORDS I ADDED A PARAGRAPH
> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly
> reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
> aborts its simulation or not.
> 
> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.

Th


> 
> If you did provide such a counter-example you mixed it in with far
> too much off topic material that I stopped reading.
> 
> I will always do this. The first time you change the subject
> I will stop reading and post the above.

Then you admit you are a liar when you say I didn't say something that 
zI did say?

Note, you even elsewhere commented that you DID reply to my comment, 
even though you didn't.

Just shows how much of a liar you are

> 
>> To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if 
>> not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========