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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a
 defamation case
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:16:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org> <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v45jqr$3h642$3@i2pn2.org> <v45kiu$3ue8q$2@dont-email.me>
 <v45lak$3h641$3@i2pn2.org> <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:16:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3709057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6062
Lines: 136

On 6/9/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01   
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void HHH(ptr
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03     P(I);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13   int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite 
>>>>>>>>>>> recursion is
>>>>>>>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>>>>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution 
>>>>>>>>>> "correct".
>>>>>>>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>>>>>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>>>>>>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so 
>>>>>>>> you are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
>>>>>>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to 
>>>>>> clearify the meaning of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When someone "questions what you mean by something"
>>>>> by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several times 
>>>> after being corrected.
>>>>
>>>> That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then stop Lying!
>>
> 
> *I never have lied and you know it*

Another Lie. (Read the message you trimed)

> *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*

Another Lie. (Read the messsage you trimed)

> *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
> *WINS DEFAMATION CASES*

Nope, since my words are correct, you have no case.

Do you REALLY want to have to testify on the stand before a jury of 
"normal" people and try to explain your idea to them and convince tem 
that you are telling the truth.

Think you could stand the counter claims?

> 
> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*

Nope, Never *PROVEN*

And not by the right defintion of "Correctly SImulated" to claim 
not-halting.

> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
> 
> That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that
> the x86 source-code of D exactly matches the two execution
> traces that I provided. *It is much easier to see in Google Groups*

Nope, remember, you still havn't correctly simulated the call H 
instruction, and have instructions listed that were never actual gotten 
to again.

> 
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> [Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating 
> partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 

Which is  strawman question, which is just another form of deception.