Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 11:31:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <v15nta$19ip0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v0oanj$1pbn5$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0odkk$1qhdh$1@dont-email.me> <v0of13$1qs9n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0qbg8$2c7pe$1@dont-email.me> <v0r350$2hb7o$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0t2rj$33d7g$1@dont-email.me> <v0to22$3881i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0vnud$3pgsv$1@dont-email.me> <v107il$3t543$1@dont-email.me>
 <v128nt$erc9$1@dont-email.me> <v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> <v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1549m$2783$1@news.muc.de> <v15fc9$17unh$6@dont-email.me>
 <v15hat$94v$1@news.muc.de> <v15hsc$17unh$8@dont-email.me>
 <v15lk0$1qp4$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 18:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d5b94937ab75d91202558453b5391e6";
	logging-data="1362720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nCHTTh9ulMtyNRm2UV+Qw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xGjPG+6G12aNBZ3U3SuPlm0RkPI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v15lk0$1qp4$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7304

On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>>>> You are doing better than Alan on this though he doesn't
>>>>>> have a single clue about what execution traces are or how
>>>>>> they work.
>>>
>>>>> You should read "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale
>>>>> Carnegie.  You may not care about the former, but you sure are trying
>>>>> the latter.  Hint: telling nasty lies about people is not effective.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The alternative of disparaging my work without even looking at
>>>> it is far worse because it meets the
>>>
>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>
>>>> required for libel and defamation cases.
>>>
>>> No.  There have got to be limits on what one spends ones time on.  You
>>
>> None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without looking at what
>> I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe that I am wrong
>> on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility is not defamatory.
>>
>>> have been maintaining false things over the years to such a degree that
>>> it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect brilliant insights from
>>> you.  For example, you insist that robustly proven mathematical theorems
>>> are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word.
>>>
>>
>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>> 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 }
>>
>> Execution Trace
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>
>> Simulation invariant:
>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
>> Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory because anyone
>> with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can determine that
>> it is true by verifying that the execution trace is correct.
>>
>> When you say it is false by either not verifying that the execution
>> trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces are <is>
>> defamatory.
> 
> But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one disregarding the 
> evidence.
> 
> I guess I could file defamatory claims against you.
> 

It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal in all of
your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were vigorously attempting
to get away with the strawman deception change the subject "rebuttal".

A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to wade through
all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals" interpreted
*D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated by H*

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.

One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they "interpret"
*D is simulated by H*
   to mean
*D is NEVER simulated by H*



When one of ordinary skill in the art of C programming can
easily verify that the execution trace presented is correct:

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 }

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

Then anyone asserting otherwise does meet the definition of
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html 
required for libel and defamation cases.

A valid counter-example would overcome this. Mere rhetoric and
ad hominem attacks instead of a valid counter-example sustain
the characterization of defamation rather than rebut it.

> 
>>
>>>> I prefer honest dialogues. Whenever the other party diverges from this
>>>> I will call it out. It may be fun to have an insult party until this
>>>> makes one look ridiculously foolish.
>>>
>>> You do NOT prefer honest dialogues at all.  You are not prepared, ever,
>>> to admit where you are wrong.  You seem to insist that everybody else
>>> takes your pronouncements at face value.  You do not appear to try to
>>> understand others' points of view, even (especially?) where they are
>>> right.
>>>
>>> How is that "honest dialogue"?
>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer