Path: ...!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: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 17:53:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <v2tq50$32r0d$2@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> <v2tnr1$32e7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tp5n$22aq0$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tpdg$32me8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tptp$22aq1$13@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 00:53:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3238925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KWNAYO3nA92XPaWiTvPMT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VTJNxdTAvLK242c5PdyMhSEghIs=
In-Reply-To: <v2tptp$22aq1$13@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7537

On 5/25/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/24 6:13 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have proven that you do not have the basis to move beyond the
>>>> subject line of this post. I am unwilling to entertain your baseless
>>>> assertions.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the terms 
> that you are changing.
> 

*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*

*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*

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