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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H
 ---Airtight Mutual Accountability
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 10:18:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1labm$kf52$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me>
 <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me>
 <S3adnSAsJp_xoKH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v1ig2c$gouj$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1j33r$ptd1$2@dont-email.me> <v1k0tv$iuna$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1k3pt$14mbi$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 14:18:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="670882"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1k3pt$14mbi$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7002
Lines: 127

On 5/9/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2024 7:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 09 May 2024 04:05:14 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance
>>>>> that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support
>>>>> of your claims.  Not that I can really enforce this, but I think 
>>>>> for the
>>>>> most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement
>>>>> you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You understand the reason I ask this:  you are unfortunately 
>>>>> completely
>>>>> unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you
>>>>> (mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your
>>>>> argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that
>>>>> [something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of
>>>>> context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>>>>>
>>>>> If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those 
>>>>> views /as
>>>>> your own words/, but none of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert
>>>>> (lol) has agreed that..." and so on.  Those are attempts to silence
>>>>> opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to
>>>>> be involved in that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will 
>>>>> be in
>>>>> context :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>> Hello Mike, are you one of the „experts” Olcott quotes? I would be
>>>> interested in what your original concession regarding the code was.
>>>> Have a nice day
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
>>> *New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
>>> *New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
>>>
>>> I prefer to achieve 100% mutual agreement on the verbatim language
>>> of any paraphrase of position and get specific permission to quote
>>> these exact words as I have done with professor Sipser and one more
>>> top expert in a different field.
>>>
>>
>> And, as has been shown with your qoutes from professor Sipser, you 
>> "interprete" his words in ways that do not match what he would mean 
>> with those words, because you just don't know what those words means 
>> to someone knoledgable in the field.
>>
>> For instance, the only "correct simulation" that Prof Sipser would be 
>> thinking of would be that of a UTM, so the only meaning to him of a 
>> "correct simulation" not ending would be a machine, that when directly 
>> run, never reaches a final state.
> 
> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> Usenet Article Lookup http://al.howardknight.net/
> USENET Message-ID: <ti9fd0$1unl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> 
> *I am not going to move on to any other point while*
> *you continue to lie about an easily verified fact*
> 
> 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 }
> 
> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
> 

This statement has been proven WRONG, as I posted a message describing 
in enough detail to easily create such a program H.

This shows that your statement is just wrong.

YOU need to decide either to accept my statement, or show that my idea 
is wrong, or show that I did not post an idea.

If you accept my statement, you can't continue to make your erroneous 
claims, but will need to either refine your method, or preferably just 
abandon it.

You can't prove that I didn't say something, unless you can actually 
exhaustively search the material (at which point you will find my 
messsage). Since I know what I posted, I am sure you can't prove that I 
didn't say it.

Thus, your only path forward that doesn't accept my claim, is to try to 
refute what I said, which requires that find out what I said.

So, you need to choos what to do, either just continue repeating 
statements that are false, but that you think must be true dispite being 
told they have been proven false.

Or, you need to find the statement to refute it. You could try looking 
for it, but it seems you don't understand how to do that, or you are 
just unwilling to, or you can get me to point out the statement.

Just demanding will not work, I have no need to help you, and pointing 
out (truthfully) that I have posted it, is enough to make the point 
(since YOU have the burden of proof).

I have given you a simple solution if you are actually sure that I am 
lying (which I am not) of agreeing to stop if I show you wrong. The fact 
that you do NOT take up this options, just shows that you are not sure 
of your facts, which makes you repeated assertion of them as 
unconditionally true as just a known lie.

So, you have really gotten yourself in a pickle. YOU need to admit that 
you have said statements you know might not be true, to be able to move 
forward, or do the work to find the statements and then try to refute 
them (which you won't) or try to reformulate your "proof"