Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!3.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 H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a
 defamation case
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:53:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <v45pqp$3ph0$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org> <v45p0t$35nk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:53:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a";
	logging-data="124448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ecDB8nesGn4X1sAtkjHoi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t910eOrqDNJC3/qjRrdr1edolLI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7431

On 6/9/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I think that found the spot in the source-code to insert the
>> display of the simulated lines of H simulated by H. This
>> might only be 100 pages of output.
> 
> So do it. And then provide an analysis where you show how you PROVE your 
> statement. (And be clear exactly what statement you are claiming to prove)
> 
Perhaps you have always been hiding your lack of sufficient
technical competence?

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
This has ALWAYS proved that D is correctly simulated by H.

The derived execution trace of D simulated by H proves that
it simulated the steps correctly and in the correct order.

The H simulated by H produces another correct trace proves
that its trace is correct too.

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