Path: ...!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: Sun, 5 May 2024 07:10:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v17peu$2oq8$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@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> <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v16tp4$1l8ug$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 11:10:22 -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
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v16tp4$1l8ug$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 28903
Lines: 609

On 5/4/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========