Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 13:33:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <v22v5g$11dig$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <v20027$865j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v200oo$843p$1@dont-email.me> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22e19$2u32$1@news.muc.de> <v22g3h$tjgs$3@dont-email.me>
 <v22ib3$2f2m$1@news.muc.de> <v22phh$1006v$2@dont-email.me>
 <v22tfp$vhj$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:33:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b1a5f306bf9a6832a28841b3fc547c1";
	logging-data="1095248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dliXOHH4e2FWboQKn7fVn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MaYdpcsXrtxsHwRE/yqomTu6G/Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v22tfp$vhj$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 7473

On 5/15/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/2024 9:54 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 
>>>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
> 
>>>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>>>>> But nobody here knows the proof for your assertion above, that it
>>>>>>>>> is a verified fact that it cannot reach past line 03. So, we would
>>>>>>>>> like to see that proof. Just the claim that it has been proven is
>>>>>>>>> not enough.
> 
>>>>>>>> The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless
>>>>>>>> about the semantics of the C programming language.
> 
>>>>>>> Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away
>>>>>>> from it.
> 
>>>>>> I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades.
> 
>>>>> I see evidence to the contrary.  You may have dabbled in C twenty
>>>>> years ago, or so, but if you were an expert C/C++ programmer, you
>>>>> would not have written those twelve lines so carelessly that they
>>>>> don't even compile.
> 
>>>> *I have told you that this is a template previously*
> 
>>> Whatever that might mean, you have asserted (or at least implied) that
>>> that code was written in C, whether you call it a template or not.
> 
>>> You are not an expert in C, see above.  Given your known penchant for
>>> telling untruths, there is nothing posted in this newsgroup suggesting
>>> you have expertise in C coding, and much suggesting the contrary.
> 
>>>> *Ignoring this are repeating the above claims are the*
>>>> *reckless disregard for the truth of defamation cases*
> 
>>> Then sue me for defamation.  You might have to learn a bit of German,
>>> first.
> 
>>>> *Failing to provide the single counter-example required to show*
>>>> *that I am incorrect because you know such a counter-example*
>>>> *does not exist IS DEFAMATION*
> 
>>> A counter example to an assertion about some code that doesn't even
>>> compile?  Quite honestly, I can't be bothered.  Richard has already given
>>> one.  Besides, the burden of proof for your assertion lies on you.  You
>>> have given no proof, so far, and as already stated, you likely don't even
>>> understand what the word proof means.
> 
>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> This is a simple software engineering verified fact.
> 
>>> And that last sentence is (yet another) lie.
> 
> 
>> *When we stay on the actual topic of this post then*
>> *the following must be directly addressed and not ignored*
> 
> You don't get to decide what the topic of a post is.
> 
>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> 
>> *When Richard interprets*
> 
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
> 
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> 
>> Richard is saying
>> for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
>> one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"
> 
>> Can this be an honest mistake?
> 
> It's a mistake, honest or otherwise, on your part.
> 

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

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E 


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.
 >
 > Unless you clarify your altered definitions, H is what H is
 > and that just becomes the conclusion.
 >

 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> Every D simulated by H ...

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }


If you disagree with this translation you must point out the error:
*Translating the above using quantifiers: Richard is saying*
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least one element
of "D NEVER simulated by H"
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========