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 19:20:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 391
Message-ID: <v16jd1$1fk82$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> <v16hln$1f7fm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16ikg$2oq7$3@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 02:20:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="1560834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SL7lJ2Njq98nq9F36PmR9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wVmbDEDB2Pr6hp5XOqbDmG5/8Vo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v16ikg$2oq7$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 18512

On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========