Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103977 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-27 19:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-29 09:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 353 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 21:39 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 20:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 22:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 21:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 23:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 22:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 10:00 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:15 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:34 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:29 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 17:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:01 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 23:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:47 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:44 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:14 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:30 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:14 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:23 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:19 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:39 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:36 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:05 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 22:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 01:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 07:33 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 22:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:11 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 21:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:02 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:11 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 13:40 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 13:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:57 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 16:02 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 16:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 18:22 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 17:44 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 19:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 18:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 19:38 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 14:16 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 06:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 00:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 10:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:14 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:01 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:46 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:50 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 19:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 21:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 21:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 23:11 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:22 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:03 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 21:25 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:18 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 08:03 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 09:22 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 21:05 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 23:09 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 22:52 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 07:48 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 10:41 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:15 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-22 09:52 +0200
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-22 10:26 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 13:31 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:09 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 23:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:32 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 16:44 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 13:27 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:19 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-01 09:42 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:16 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-01 18:44 -0600
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 21:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-01 20:30 -0600
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:03 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:12 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:08 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:51 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:28 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:16 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:04 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:04 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:12 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:21 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:03 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:46 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2024-05-03 18:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:04 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:42 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 14:37 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 15:23 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 16:17 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 12:31 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 18:19 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 14:04 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 10:46 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:18 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 17:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:10 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 18:24 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 19:38 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 13:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-02 17:10 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:42 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-30 15:44 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:15 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-30 16:46 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 13:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-01 10:01 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:16 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:36 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:23 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:49 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:01 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:55 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:38 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 14:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:05 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:02 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:20 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:17 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:40 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:26 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:00 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:08 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:08 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:05 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:40 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:33 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 14:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:36 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:56 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:39 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:35 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:25 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 19:30 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 16:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:35 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:29 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:33 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 13:40 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:38 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:47 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:14 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:38 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 14:20 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:16 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:07 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 12:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 16:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 17:10 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 14:31 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:35 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:45 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 22:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:24 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 00:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 13:22 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 13:03 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:00 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:43 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-03 14:08 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 09:34 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 14:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 15:08 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 16:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:43 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 23:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:53 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 13:10 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:51 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 15:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 07:40 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:11 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:41 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:29 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:59 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:09 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 15:27 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:14 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 15:22 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:10 -0500
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0v0tm$3kdu6$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104158 |
On 5/1/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>>> final state.
>>>
>>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point. You've
>>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>>> can't.
>>>
>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>>> ....
>>>
>>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
>>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential. But since you fail to
>>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
>>>
>>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>>> halting.
>>>
>>>>> Complete Balderdash. Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
>>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
>>>
>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Is that it? Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
>>> mathematical definition? It doesn't look like one to me.
>>>
>>
>> Expert's in the C language could directly confirm that no D
>> simulated by H can possible reach past its own line 3. Everyone
>> here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand this
>> so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>
>
> Nope, I have shown some H's that can get there.
>
I just proved otherwise in my prior reply. You can tell which one
was my prior reply because they have time/date stamps in the order
that they were answered.
>
>> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>> > Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the
>> > program is repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate
>> > that it will never reach the final "ret" - indeed,
>> > it won't even get to the infinite loop identified above.
>
> Yes, an H that blindly simulates like that gets into an infinite loop.
>
This was the very first time anyone agreed with that verified fact.
> The problem is that when you change H to not do that, the D it needs to
> correctly answer to be the counter example changes, so that logic
> doesn't apply.
>
>>
>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>
>>> That's a barefaced lie. Who has done such "verification", how, and
>>> when,
>>
>> Two experts in the C programming language and two
>> people with masters degrees in computer science.
>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>
>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>
>
> So, you believe fallicous arguements are valid.
>
> In other words, you don't believe in the use of correct logic.
Try to show another counter-example this time re-read what I said
however many times needed so that you are actually addressing the
actual words that I actually said.
When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 23:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0v2om$2qov3$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104172 |
On 5/1/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>
>>>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point. You've
>>>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>>>> can't.
>>>>
>>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
>>>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential. But since you fail to
>>>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
>>>>
>>>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>
>>>>>> Complete Balderdash. Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
>>>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
>>>>
>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> Is that it? Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
>>>> mathematical definition? It doesn't look like one to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Expert's in the C language could directly confirm that no D
>>> simulated by H can possible reach past its own line 3. Everyone
>>> here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand this
>>> so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>
>>
>> Nope, I have shown some H's that can get there.
>>
>
> I just proved otherwise in my prior reply. You can tell which one
> was my prior reply because they have time/date stamps in the order
> that they were answered.
Nope. You are just proving to be a liar as you made NO comments to the
entire section about what I was describing, even though you claimed to
have addressed it.
Of course, in that post you sidetracked yourself.
>
>>
>>> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>> > Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the
>>> > program is repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate
>>> > that it will never reach the final "ret" - indeed,
>>> > it won't even get to the infinite loop identified above.
>>
>> Yes, an H that blindly simulates like that gets into an infinite loop.
>>
>
> This was the very first time anyone agreed with that verified fact.
Nope.
Just shows how much of a pathological liar you are.
>
>> The problem is that when you change H to not do that, the D it needs
>> to correctly answer to be the counter example changes, so that logic
>> doesn't apply.
>>
>>>
>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>
>>>> That's a barefaced lie. Who has done such "verification", how, and
>>>> when,
>>>
>>> Two experts in the C programming language and two
>>> people with masters degrees in computer science.
>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>
>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>
>>
>> So, you believe fallicous arguements are valid.
>>
>> In other words, you don't believe in the use of correct logic.
>
> Try to show another counter-example this time re-read what I said
> however many times needed so that you are actually addressing the
> actual words that I actually said.
Nope. You losts your chance, I have claimed the right of claiming you
wrong until you actually refute my example since you have shown yourself
to LIE about what you have said.
>
> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>
SHouldn't take that many times through if you actuall know what you are
doing.
Yes, perhaps a couple, but 15 indicates a fundamental lack of the
foundations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 23:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0v3i8$3l29l$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104179 |
On 5/1/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point. You've
>>>>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
>>>>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential. But since you fail to
>>>>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Complete Balderdash. Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
>>>>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that it? Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to
>>>>> be a
>>>>> mathematical definition? It doesn't look like one to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Expert's in the C language could directly confirm that no D
>>>> simulated by H can possible reach past its own line 3. Everyone
>>>> here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand this
>>>> so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I have shown some H's that can get there.
>>>
>>
>> I just proved otherwise in my prior reply. You can tell which one
>> was my prior reply because they have time/date stamps in the order
>> that they were answered.
>
>
> Nope. You are just proving to be a liar as you made NO comments to the
> entire section about what I was describing, even though you claimed to
> have addressed it.
>
> Of course, in that post you sidetracked yourself.
>
(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
If you don't directly address those words right here then I
will ignore everything after them.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>> > Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the
>>>> > program is repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate
>>>> > that it will never reach the final "ret" - indeed,
>>>> > it won't even get to the infinite loop identified above.
>>>
>>> Yes, an H that blindly simulates like that gets into an infinite loop.
>>>
>>
>> This was the very first time anyone agreed with that verified fact.
>
> Nope.
>
> Just shows how much of a pathological liar you are.
>
>>
>>> The problem is that when you change H to not do that, the D it needs
>>> to correctly answer to be the counter example changes, so that logic
>>> doesn't apply.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a barefaced lie. Who has done such "verification", how, and
>>>>> when,
>>>>
>>>> Two experts in the C programming language and two
>>>> people with masters degrees in computer science.
>>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you believe fallicous arguements are valid.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't believe in the use of correct logic.
>>
>> Try to show another counter-example this time re-read what I said
>> however many times needed so that you are actually addressing the
>> actual words that I actually said.
>
> Nope. You losts your chance, I have claimed the right of claiming you
> wrong until you actually refute my example since you have shown yourself
> to LIE about what you have said.
>
>>
>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>
>
> SHouldn't take that many times through if you actuall know what you are
> doing.
>
> Yes, perhaps a couple, but 15 indicates a fundamental lack of the
> foundations.
The VISA change document of the VISA c
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 00:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0v3sk$2qov4$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104189 |
On 5/2/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote: > (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot > possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H > aborts its simulation or not. > > If you don't directly address those words right here then I > will ignore everything after them. > > You don't get to set the rules. You are really just admitting that you have nothing to base your claims on. I have posted my reasoning, and you have failed to address it, so your claim is refuted. Repeating it is just knowing lying and admitting you have no further basis to make the claim than you think it must be true, and are too stupid to understand the reply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 12:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v0vlmb$3ovek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104172 |
On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said: > When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system > I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before > I was confident that I understood every relevant detail. It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept. Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end. Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof is erroneous. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1098d$3tep8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104208 |
On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said: > >> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system >> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before >> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail. > > It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept. > Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you > found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end. > It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which ones applied. > Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there > is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof > is erroneous. > There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring any subjective judgement call: (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H aborts its simulation or not. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v11fq3$2tlr1$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104217 |
On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system >>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before >>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail. >> >> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept. >> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you >> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end. >> > > It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system > that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which > ones applied. Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem. > >> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there >> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof >> is erroneous. >> > > There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring > any subjective judgement call: > > (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot > possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H > aborts its simulation or not. > Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being a pathological liar by repeating it. Until you can show a problem with BOTH of the two methods I have described, your claim is just repeating INVALID and UNSOUND logic base on your LIES.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 07:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v12lp7$hk7o$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104241 |
On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>
>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>
>>
>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>> ones applied.
>
> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>
>>
>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>> is erroneous.
>>>
>>
>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>> any subjective judgement call:
>>
>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof,
> thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being a
> pathological liar by repeating it.
>
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
> Until you can show a problem with BOTH of the two methods I have
> described, your claim is just repeating INVALID and UNSOUND logic base
> on your LIES.
You mix in to much extraneous stuff. I am not going to wade
through that. As soon as I see you are not talking about (a)
I skip the rest of your post.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 22:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v145ct$c31$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104258 |
On 5/3/24 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>
>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>> ones applied.
>>
>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>
>>>
>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>
>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof,
>> thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being
>> a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>
> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
Are you going to take the challenge, and agree that if I can point it
out that you will never again say that no one has offered a refutation
to your statements?
>
> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>
>> Until you can show a problem with BOTH of the two methods I have
>> described, your claim is just repeating INVALID and UNSOUND logic base
>> on your LIES.
>
> You mix in to much extraneous stuff. I am not going to wade
> through that. As soon as I see you are not talking about (a)
> I skip the rest of your post.
>
>
But none of my stuff is actually "extraneous", I just get to you because
sometimes I am a couple steps ahead of your plan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-04 12:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v14uqb$14rq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104258 |
On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>
>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>> ones applied.
>>
>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>
>>>
>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>
>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof,
>> thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being a
>> pathological liar by repeating it.
>>
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>
> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>
> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
by H" can be anything.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-04 08:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v15ed4$17unh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104301 |
On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>> ones applied.
>>>
>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>
>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>
>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>
>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>
> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
> by H" can be anything.
>
<sarcasm>
Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
and then get into an infinite loop
</sarcasm>
Richard "interpreted"
*D simulated by H* to mean
*D NEVER simulated by H*
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-04 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v15shl$1qp5$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104313 |
On 5/4/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>
>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>
>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>
>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>> by H" can be anything.
>>
>
>
> <sarcasm>
> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
> and then get into an infinite loop
> </sarcasm>
>
> Richard "interpreted"
> *D simulated by H* to mean
> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
>
But that statement has been disproven, and you have chosen to not refute
it, so you should understand that your statement is just a lie, but of
course, you are just a pathological liar that doesn't care what is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 11:01 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v17ec2$1oe3i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104313 |
On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>
>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof,
>>>> thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being a
>>>> pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>
>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>
>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>> by H" can be anything.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
> and then get into an infinite loop
> </sarcasm>
No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
> Richard "interpreted"
> *D simulated by H* to mean
> *D NEVER simulated by H*
No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
(possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
interpretation.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1852r$1t4hn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104356 |
On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>
>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>>
>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>> by H" can be anything.
>>
>> <sarcasm>
>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>> and then get into an infinite loop
>> </sarcasm>
>
> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>
>> Richard "interpreted"
>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
> interpretation.
>
The spec did not allow for zero steps.
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless*
>> *aborted by H* does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
>> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>
> Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
>
> It means that
>
> int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
> the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
> that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 12:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v18dlu$5asq$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104366 |
On 5/5/24 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>>>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>
>>> <sarcasm>
>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>> </sarcasm>
>>
>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>
>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>> interpretation.
>>
>
> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
The original spec did not prohibit it.
>
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
> >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless*
> >> *aborted by H* does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
> >
> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
> >
> > It means that
> >
> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 12:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v18g74$1vhpv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104380 |
On 5/5/2024 11:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>>>>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>>
>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>
>>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>>
>>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>
>> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
>
> The original spec did not prohibit it.
>
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
Does prohibit it. If you are having a hard time paying
attention to words that is not the same thing as lying.
>>
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>> >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless*
>> >> *aborted by H* does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>> >
>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
>> >
>> > It means that
>> >
>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>
>>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 14:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v18icv$5asr$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104391 |
On 5/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 11:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and
>>>>>>>> are just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H
>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>
>>>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>>>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>>>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>>>
>>>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>>>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>>>> interpretation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
>>
>> The original spec did not prohibit it.
>>
>
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> Does prohibit it. If you are having a hard time paying
> attention to words that is not the same thing as lying.
Nope, one of my examples still works there where H just simulates every
instruction it sees until it gets to the return instruction.
So, it is clear you still haven't found the the problem with my counter
example.
Willing to make the promise that if I can show how to write an H as a
valid C subroutine (similar to your published H) that CAN simulate the
input D to a final state that you will give up your tirades here and
accept defeat?
>
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>> >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless*
>>> >> *aborted by H* does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>>> >
>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
>>> >
>>> > It means that
>>> >
>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>> > return 0;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 18:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v1arje$2kh4g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104366 |
On 2024-05-05 14:28:42 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that proof,
>>>>>> thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are just being a
>>>>>> pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>
>>> <sarcasm>
>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>> </sarcasm>
>>
>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>
>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>> interpretation.
>
> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
Irrelevant. We were not discussiong spec but your claim about Richard.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 11:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1auua$2ladu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104455 |
On 5/6/2024 10:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-05 14:28:42 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and are
>>>>>>> just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H means.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>>
>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>
>>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>>
>>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>>> interpretation.
>>
>> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
>
> Irrelevant. We were not discussiong spec but your claim about Richard.
>
My claim to Richard
*Every D simulated by H that cannot*
*possibly stop running unless aborted by H*
Cannot be correctly interpreted as
*Any D NEVER simulated by H*
The only way to get that interpretation
is gross negligence or dishonesty.
*It is looking a lot like more gross negligence now*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless
>> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
>> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>
> Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
>
> It means that
>
> int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
> the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
> that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1c34g$9f73$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104461 |
On 5/6/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-05 14:28:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-04 13:49:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-03 12:36:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system
>>>>>>>>>>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before
>>>>>>>>>>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept.
>>>>>>>>>> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you
>>>>>>>>>> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system
>>>>>>>>> that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which
>>>>>>>>> ones applied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because your system doesn't meet the basic requirement of the
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there
>>>>>>>>>> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof
>>>>>>>>>> is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring
>>>>>>>>> any subjective judgement call:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proven wrong, and you have FAILED to even attempt to rebut that
>>>>>>>> proof, thus you have accepted that your claim is baseless and
>>>>>>>> are just being a pathological liar by repeating it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post the exact time date stamp and quote where you proved it wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In one case it is ridiculous nonsense that you proved (a) is wrong.
>>>>>>> You must show a counter example where 1 to N steps of D(D) are
>>>>>>> simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are ahead of Mikko he has no idea what D(D) simulated by H
>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly have, nore than you. One posiible interpretation is
>>>>>> 'the direct execution of the same D as H was simulationg with the
>>>>>> same D as input' but there are other possibilities. But one can
>>>>>> also say that H may simulate any program with any input so "simulated
>>>>>> by H" can be anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>> Sure D simulated by H might mean play a game of tic-tac-toe
>>>>> and then get into an infinite loop
>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>
>>>> No, you have restricted D to mean constructed with the pattern above.
>>>> There is no place for a game of tic-tac-toe unless H plays it. The
>>>> infinite loop is there, so going there is no problem.
>>>>
>>>>> Richard "interpreted"
>>>>> *D simulated by H* to mean
>>>>> *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> No, he interpreted it to mean 'simulation some finite number of steps
>>>> (possibly zero) by H of the execution of D'. That is not his usual
>>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>> The spec did not allow for zero steps.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We were not discussiong spec but your claim about Richard.
>>
>
> My claim to Richard
>
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot*
> *possibly stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> Cannot be correctly interpreted as
> *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> The only way to get that interpretation
> is gross negligence or dishonesty.
>
> *It is looking a lot like more gross negligence now*
>
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
> >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless
> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
> >
> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
> >
> > It means that
> >
> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
>
>
Which just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.
First, the above program isn't refuting that H can't simualte past the
line 3, but that by your current stated definition in that statement, if
your H is correct in saying D(D) is non-halting, by the same basic logic
and different machine sets (since the statement doesn't restrict what H
can be other than a simulating termination analyzer) we can make a
machihne that must be considered CORRECT in deciding most inputs. If you
want to define that it must do at least 1 step of simulation to be a
simulator, then a few must be found halting.
In a DIFFERENT proof, I showed that you claim that you can't make an
infinite set of some H that simulate 1 to an infinte number of steps of
the D(D) that calls that H to reach the end is incorrect.
I can make a simple version of H that will simulate that D to its end.
Thus, your claim is invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web