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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 22:46:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ep1j$cp5s$5@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v1c7jr$31thl$1@dont-email.me> <v1c8nh$9f72$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c8un$3242s$2@dont-email.me> <v1c9ht$9f73$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c9pq$325ls$2@dont-email.me> <v1d2j1$9f72$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v1de7m$3a1rb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 02:46:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="419004"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1de7m$3a1rb$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8928
Lines: 212

On 5/7/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I 
>>>>>> was refering to, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>>
>>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a 
>>>> lie.
>>>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
> 
> *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*

No, it shows that you don't understand the nature of universaqualifiers.

> 
> *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> 
> *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> 

I did, and you ignore it, just like the election deniers, so you are 
just like them and the pillow guy.

> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> *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.

Nope.

> 
>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was 
>> refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological 
>> liar by saying it is.
>>
>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>
>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are 
>> lair.
>>
> 
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
> 
>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be 
>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========