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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 13:15:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v15qg3$1qp4$6@i2pn2.org>
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> <v15nta$19ip0$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 17:15:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="60196"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v15nta$19ip0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8438
Lines: 202

On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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".

But very close to my first part of the reply I indicated that there WAS 
a detailed description of this at the end, and you replied to that 
mention, saying that since your statement was categorically true it 
would be easy to refute, and then you just didn't do so.

So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were talking about and 
made yourself just into a liar.

YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not really interested 
in an actual honest dialog.

I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually true, as you are going 
to just assume what you want.

> 
> 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*

But that isn't what distracted you in that message.

> 
> 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*
> 
> 

But 0 steps is a number of steps.

And its logic is just as good as your H's, since it is using a FALSE 
statement.

> 
> 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.


And proven to be incorrect and you have ignored the problem.

> 
> 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.
> 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========