Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:06:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
	<v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4qe53$a0nm$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me> <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org>
	<v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me> <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me> <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:06:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="404894"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5486
Lines: 97

Am Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:21:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/18/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/17/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/17/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/17/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/24 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2024 om 05:33 schreef olcott:

>>>>>> Again, how can you claim a "Correct Simulation" by the exact
>>>>>> definition of the x86 instruction set, when you omit the call H
>>>>>> instruction, and then "jump" to an addres that was never jumped to
>>>>>> at any point later in the program.
>>>>> You just aren't bright enough to see simple truths that every
>>>>> programmer can see.
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt. That this
>>>>> truth is so simple lead me to believe that you were lying about it
>>>>> instead of ordinary cluelessness.
DDD halts iff H0 halts.
>>>> But the question isn't DDD correctly simulated by H0, but does DDD
>>>> itself, when run halt.
>>> The proof that you are wrong is over your head.
>> That is just a lying Dodge.
Yes it is.

>> An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by
>> claiming the other couldn't understand it.
> I calls em as I see em.
Then you should be able to explain it.

>> Nope, you have lied to yourself about it for two decades, but can't
>> actually show it other, because it isn't true.
> If it was merely me lying to myself then there would not be two PhD
> computer science professors that agree with me that there is something
> wrong with the halting problem.
1
Something? What is it then?

>> If you had a fundamental flaw that actually broke the system, you could
>> just show it.
But you can't.
> I and two PhD computer science professors did show yet you are so
> convinced that they are wrong that you refuse to pay attention.
2

>> It isn't that everyone else is wrong, it is YOU are wrong, but are too
>> bulheaded to accept it.
> Everyone else is beguiled by the dogma and actively denigrates those
> that know the truth to the extent of ruining their careers.
You are SO close.

> Actually you understand it better than most experts in the field. The
> clueless ones believe that this sentence is a truth without a
> truthmaker: "This sentence has no truthmaker."
Do you think that sentence is true?

>>>> Do that just makes you a LIAR, and so that is what you are.
>>> *Calling me a liar may get you sent to actual Hell*
>> Nope, since it is a truth, it isn't a lie.
> Presuming yourself to be infallible may be blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
> I never made the mistake of presuming myself to be infallible.
This is just perfect.

>> Truth seems to be something beyound your understanding since you have
>> lied to yourself so long.
> Two PhD computer science professors agree with me.
3 arguments from authority.

>>> That you have a religious conviction that I am incorrect is a bias
>>> that prevents you from trying to actually understand what I am saying.
Funny how you bring up religion.
>> It isn't a "religious" conviction, but a knowledge of how logic
>> actually works.
> Logic is not the measure of truth. Classical and Symbolic logic has
> flaws. Truth preserving operations from expressions stipulated to be
> true corrects all of the errors of logic.
That is how logic works. It's the best tool we have for truth.

>> If you don't see how claiming that an answer that is wrong by
>> definition is right is illogical, you are just beyound hope.
> When definitions derive incoherence that we know that they are
> incorrect.
Exactly. Like that simulators can just not simulate. The definition of the
halting problem is perfectly well-defined.

-- 
joes