Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 22:36:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v1c7jr$31thl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v18f9e$5asq$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v18nbf$21c98$1@dont-email.me> <v1c0p8$2skfl$3@dont-email.me>
 <v1c5fk$31a3g$1@dont-email.me> <v1c5te$9f73$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 05:36:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe47412d5222aa086f42d5af46fe483";
	logging-data="3208757"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/VrUYCiQWky0dIgRZsQdW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LNzJ8dOhQc1cAdyC4iPDXwMmdE0=
In-Reply-To: <v1c5te$9f73$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3900

On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>
>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is 
>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>
>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>
>>
>> 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>
>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>
>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>
>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>
> 
> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can 
> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
> 
> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
> 

When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

> The fact that you keep on repeating it after it has been shown to you 
> just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
> 
> Refute that claim or STFU.
> 
> If you are sure I haven't made that proof, take the challenge, and if I 
> show you where I posted the proof, and you can not show where it doesn't 
> meet these stated requirements, then you agree to drop this idiotic plan 
> to try to "prove" that Halting is decidable.
> 
> If you aren't sure I haven't made the proof, then you are just admitting 
> you are a liar for making the claim that it must be true.



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer