Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 17:40:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v2tpcj$32me8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2pg3r$27s2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me> <v2qihn$1vblq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2qrnf$2fesr$3@dont-email.me> <v2qvar$1vblp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@dont-email.me> <v2r3r0$2h2l7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2r7cq$1vblq$10@i2pn2.org> <v2rpda$2nvot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2smub$22aq1$1@i2pn2.org> <v2t8o0$2vna0$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2t9tj$22aq1$5@i2pn2.org> <v2tajd$2vna0$6@dont-email.me>
 <v2tdre$22aq1$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tfms$30u1r$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2tgv2$22aq0$2@i2pn2.org> <v2th6a$319s1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tjpr$22aq1$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tk9i$31qgp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tkit$22aq0$6@i2pn2.org> <v2tl8b$31uo4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tm5d$22aq0$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tn7g$327a4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tp5i$22aq0$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:40:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3234248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188HWGX/fwU1qdblmY8NkOT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:66RvyaRMO6YxlxXMf7ZPXxI8dz4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2tp5i$22aq0$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6986

On 5/25/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 4:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/24 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as you first hit the strawman deception 
>>>>>>>>>>>> change-the-subject
>>>>>>>>>>>> fake rebuttal I pint this pout and erase everything else 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thread renamed to be 100% precisely accurate*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any divergence from the subject of the thread gets 
>>>>>>>>>>>> boilerplate reply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your 
>>>>>>>>>>> words, admitting that you plan to change them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip so that *Usenet Article Lookup* finds the whole message>
>>>>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I simply utterly reject the dishonest dodge
>>>>>>>>>> of the strawman deception change-the-subject rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>>>> 02       {
>>>>>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> 07       }
>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>>>>>>> 10       {
>>>>>>>>>> 11         H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>>>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs 
>>>>>>>>>> where D is
>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because 
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which 
>>>>>>>>>> H/D pair
>>>>>>>>>> was being referred to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>>>>>>>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different 
>>>>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates at 
>>>>>>>>>> least one
>>>>>>>>>>     of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the 
>>>>>>>>>> x86
>>>>>>>>>>     instructions of D.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions 
>>>>>>>>>> of H in the
>>>>>>>>>>     order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling 
>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) in
>>>>>>>>>>     recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, 
>>>>>>>>>> and 03 of
>>>>>>>>>> D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless 
>>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words, 
>>>>>>>>> admitting that you plan to change them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all and you cannot show that I disagree with the above
>>>>>>>> words to the slightest trace of any degree what-so-ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Liar Liar Pants on fire? Will assume so until proven otherwise*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A don't say that you disagree woth them, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>> In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words,
>>>>>> YES YOU DID, LOOK AT YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I accept that you want to use your stipulated definition of the 
>>>>> words, 
>>>>
>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>>>> Then why the Hell did you say otherwise?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you not read what I wrote?
>>>
>>> You need to agree to the implications of those definitions before we 
>>> can go on.
>>
>> OFF-TOPIC PLEASE DO NOT DIVERGE *AT ALL* FROM
>> THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
>>
>> Until you
>> (1) Unequivocally agree with
>>      or
>> (2) Attempt to directly refute
>> THE EXACT WORDS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
>>
>> *ALL OF YOUR WORDS WILL BE IGNORED AND ERASED*
>>
> 
> I guess you are proving you don't want an honest dialog, because you are 
> unwilling to accept the consequences of your deffinition.
> 

We can get to the next point ONLY AFTER WE FINISH THIS POINT.
I am no longer willing to tolerate your baseless assertions.
ONLY AFTER WE HAVE THIS POINT AS A BASIS CAN WE PROCEED.

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