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 22:49:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$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> <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v16nfc$1gasi$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 02:49:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="90951"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 25726
Lines: 531

On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========