Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 21:05:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@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>
 <v16l3c$1ftgf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 01:05:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="90952"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v16l3c$1ftgf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 23376
Lines: 486

On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 ==========