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 23:09:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v45qpe$3h642$4@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>
 <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org> <v45p0t$35nk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org> <v45pqp$3ph0$2@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 03:09:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3709058"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v45pqp$3ph0$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8184
Lines: 174

On 6/9/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Nope, Since D(D) Halts, the answer of 0 is NOT correct, and H has NOT 
proven that no such simulation can halt.

> 
> 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.
> 

And your criterea for "Infinitely nested simulation are not proven to be 
correct.

In fact, I remember showing that with those rules, there can be an input 
whose "correct simulation" would halt, that being the simulation of 
utm(D,D) where D is built on your H.

Thus, it is proved that your pattern does NOT indicate that the input 
has "infinitely nested simulation", just perhaps that H can not simulate 
its input to its final return, which doesn't matter.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========