Path: ...!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 19:49:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 461
Message-ID: <v16l3c$1ftgf$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> <v16jd1$1fk82$1@dont-email.me>
 <v16kou$2oq8$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 02:49:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="1570319"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gxYG/D+9sr2zzn2HCWVLu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bFuilZZ4XBhp5f5W0ZAB7NEtefc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v16kou$2oq8$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 22184

On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========