Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 18:51:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 481
Message-ID: <v16hln$1f7fm$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> <v15nta$19ip0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v15qg3$1qp4$6@i2pn2.org> <v15vqo$1bfmh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v166fj$2oq7$1@i2pn2.org> <v168mo$1df60$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16a6g$2oq7$2@i2pn2.org> <v16blg$1e52t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16d93$2oq8$1@i2pn2.org> <v16eon$1eq05$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16gir$2oq8$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 01:51:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="1547766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FjjzdfsDItLSCMe/cbWeo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RcShDajuAUjJiyjZht3n9p9T8yg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v16gir$2oq8$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 21333

On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully examine it.
>>>>>>>> Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only
>>>>>>>> the same ruse as this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>  >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>>>>>>  >> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above)
>>>>>>>> is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown above)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========