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 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 12:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v12a35$f4kk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104217 |
On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/2/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-02 03:22:29 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> When I had to make changes to Bank's the VISA credit card system >>> I had to re-read the VISA change document fifteen times before >>> I was confident that I understood every relevant detail. >> >> It's only because there was no detail that you could not accept. >> Had there been one you could have stopped reading as soon you >> found it, perhaps even before reading first time to the end. >> > > It was because 99% of the details did not apply to my system > that I had to carefully study all of the details to see which > ones applied. > >> Likewise with your proofs: as soon as one error is found there >> is no need to read further in order to determine that the proof >> is erroneous. >> > > There is no error in this and it is a verified fact not requiring > any subjective judgement call: > > (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot > possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H > aborts its simulation or not. The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can be regarded as an error. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 06:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v12if4$h1tj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104247 |
On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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.
>
> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can
> be regarded as an error.
>
Perhaps you C skills are not that great?
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 | 2024-05-03 22:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v145ea$c31$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104251 |
On 5/3/24 7:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can
>> be regarded as an error.
>>
>
> Perhaps you C skills are not that great?
>
> 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.
>
>
Proven wrong and no refuation attempted, as accepted, be default, as an
incorrect statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-04 12:26 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v14uvf$14slk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104251 |
On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >> be regarded as an error. >> > > Perhaps you C skills are not that great? As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-04 08:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v15ehk$17unh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104302 |
On 5/4/2024 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >>> be regarded as an error. >>> >> >> Perhaps you C skills are not that great? > > As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not > presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. > Ah so it is like I guessed. I am not sure exact what strictly conforming C is, probably ISO standard 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 | 2024-05-04 12:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v15m3r$1qp4$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104314 |
On 5/4/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2024 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >>>> be regarded as an error. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you C skills are not that great? >> >> As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not >> presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. >> > > Ah so it is like I guessed. > I am not sure exact what strictly conforming C is, > probably ISO standard C. > So, how can you be a competent programmer and not know the specification for the language you are describing? Seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for you, talk about things you don't really understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 11:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v17eq5$1ogmi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104314 |
On 2024-05-04 13:51:48 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/4/2024 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >>>> be regarded as an error. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you C skills are not that great? >> >> As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not >> presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. >> > > Ah so it is like I guessed. > I am not sure exact what strictly conforming C is, > probably ISO standard C. It is the set of programs whose behaviour is independent of the C implementation (i.e., compiler and execution environment) as long as it is coforming. More detalis in C standard. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 09:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v185ai$1t4hn$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104357 |
On 5/5/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-04 13:51:48 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/4/2024 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >>>>> be regarded as an error. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you C skills are not that great? >>> >>> As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not >>> presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. >>> >> >> Ah so it is like I guessed. >> I am not sure exact what strictly conforming C is, >> probably ISO standard C. > > It is the set of programs whose behaviour is independent of the > C implementation (i.e., compiler and execution environment) as > long as it is coforming. More detalis in C standard. > I don't care about officially approved the code runs correctly on Windows and Linux and required a COFF object file input. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 18:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v1aror$2ki7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104368 |
On 2024-05-05 14:32:50 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/5/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-04 13:51:48 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/4/2024 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-05-03 11:40:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 5/3/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-05-02 14:50:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> The use of an ambigouos expression "D(D) simulated by H" can >>>>>> be regarded as an error. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you C skills are not that great? >>>> >>>> As "D(D) simulated by H" is not strictly conforming C and is not >>>> presented as such, my C skills are not relevant. >>>> >>> >>> Ah so it is like I guessed. >>> I am not sure exact what strictly conforming C is, >>> probably ISO standard C. >> >> It is the set of programs whose behaviour is independent of the >> C implementation (i.e., compiler and execution environment) as >> long as it is coforming. More detalis in C standard. >> > > I don't care about officially approved the code runs correctly > on Windows and Linux and required a COFF object file input. "D(D) simulated by H" isn't that, either. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #104145 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
to L6 and terminate.
> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks understanding,
not everybody else.
> 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.
Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
agreeing to. You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
post.
>>> (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.
Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
too.
> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
some of these problems, and you have failed to address them. Again, it's
unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified. My
understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
> --
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v10kkm$7k7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104209 |
On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>
>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>
> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
> to L6 and terminate.
>
It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
specification.
>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>
> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks understanding,
> not everybody else.
>
If that was true then four people would not have been able
to correctly answer the question.
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
> agreeing to.
*It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
> post.
>
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 }
>>>> (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.
>
> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
> too.
>
No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
*Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
that I am correct.
>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>
> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
> Again, it's
> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>
>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>
> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
"counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
any attention at all. Try and provide your own
counter-example.
> My
> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>
We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
set of H/D pair C functions.
Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
then we can move on to the next point.
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
--
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 21:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v11fqe$2tlr1$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104220 |
On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>
>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
>> to L6 and terminate.
>>
>
> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
> specification.
Nope, in fact your "term" here is not properly defined, and is based on
contradictory definitions.
>
>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>
>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks understanding,
>> not everybody else.
>>
>
> If that was true then four people would not have been able
> to correctly answer the question.
Fallacy.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>> agreeing to.
>
> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>
>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>> post.
>>
>
> 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 }
>
>
>>>>> (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.
>>
>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
>> too.
>>
>
> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
> that I am correct.
>
>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>
>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>
> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
Nope,
>
>> Again, it's
>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>
>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>
>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>
> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
> counter-example.
>
>> My
>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>
>
> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
> set of H/D pair C functions.
>
> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
>
> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>
> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
> then we can move on to the next point.
>
>>> --
>>> 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 07:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v12m0r$hk7o$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104242 |
On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>>
>>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will
>>> proceed
>>> to L6 and terminate.
>>>
>>
>> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
>> specification.
>
> Nope, in fact your "term" here is not properly defined, and is based on
> contradictory definitions.
>
Since you already agreed with Paul N you are contradicting yourself now.
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.
Message-ID: <1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n@googlegroups.com>
>
>>
>>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>
>>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks
>>> understanding,
>>> not everybody else.
>>>
>>
>> If that was true then four people would not have been able
>> to correctly answer the question.
>
> Fallacy.
>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>>> agreeing to.
>>
>> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>>
>>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>>
>>>>>> (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.
>>>
>>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
>>> too.
>>>
>>
>> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
>> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
>> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
>> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
>> that I am correct.
>>
>>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>
>>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>>
>> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
>> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
>> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
>
> Nope,
>
>
>>
>>> Again, it's
>>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>>
>>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>
>>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>>
>> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
>> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
>> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
>> counter-example.
>>
>>> My
>>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>>
>>
>> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
>> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
>> set of H/D pair C functions.
>>
>> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
>> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
>>
>> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
>> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>
>> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
>> then we can move on to the next point.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>
>
--
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 23:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v14aaj$c31$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104259 |
On 5/3/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>>>
>>>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>>>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>>>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will
>>>> proceed
>>>> to L6 and terminate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
>>> specification.
>>
>> Nope, in fact your "term" here is not properly defined, and is based
>> on contradictory definitions.
>>
>
> Since you already agreed with Paul N you are contradicting yourself now.
>
> 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.
>
> Message-ID: <1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n@googlegroups.com>
Where did I agree to this?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks
>>>> understanding,
>>>> not everybody else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was true then four people would not have been able
>>> to correctly answer the question.
>>
>> Fallacy.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>>>> agreeing to.
>>>
>>> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>>>
>>>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>>>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>>>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>
>>>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their
>>>> "verifications",
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
>>> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
>>> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
>>> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
>>> that I am correct.
>>>
>>>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>>>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>>>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>>>
>>> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
>>> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
>>> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
>>
>> Nope,
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Again, it's
>>>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>>>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>>>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>>>
>>>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>>
>>>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>>>
>>> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
>>> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
>>> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
>>> counter-example.
>>>
>>>> My
>>>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>>>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
>>> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
>>> set of H/D pair C functions.
>>>
>>> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
>>> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
>>>
>>> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
>>> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>>
>>> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
>>> then we can move on to the next point.
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 21:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v11fqi$2tlr1$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104220 |
On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>
>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
>> to L6 and terminate.
>>
>
> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
> specification.
>
>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>
>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks understanding,
>> not everybody else.
>>
>
> If that was true then four people would not have been able
> to correctly answer the question.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>> agreeing to.
>
> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>
>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>> post.
>>
>
> 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 }
>
>
>>>>> (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.
>>
>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
>> too.
>>
>
> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
> that I am correct.
Since I presented two counter examples, which you have not even
attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are
nothing but a LIAR.
To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if
not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive fraud
that changed the election.
Actually, a lot worse, They at least can use the priciple that lack of
evidence is not evidence of lack (there could be evidence that we just
don't see), but in your case, there IS evidence that you just refuse to
look at and process.
Proving you are just a pathological liar that can't handle the truth.
>
>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>
>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>
> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
>
Nope, I guess you don't understand that 0 is a number, so simulating for
0 steps CAN be consisdered a simulation by basic logic.
After all, you consider not simulating the Call H instruction to be a
correct simulation.
>> Again, it's
>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>
>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>
>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>
> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
> counter-example.
Nope.
Just shows you don't understand what I was talking about.
Your "definition" of the correct answer allows virtual all "program" to
be declaired non-halting if they do not IMMEDIATELY halt.
That is because H's simulation of course can't reach the final state if
the H aborts its simulation before it gets there, as by quickly
aborting, H can show that H can't simulate to the final state, since it
didn't.
>
>> My
>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>
>
> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
> set of H/D pair C functions.
But you haven't been able to define what you actually mean about that.
If you have an infinite set of machines as the input, some that halt and
some don't, what it *THE* answer?
You ere just demonstrating that you don't understand how to define what
you are trying to do, likely because "definitions" are a basis for
"Truth" and you have decided that trivial things like that can't get in
your way of proving this idea you have.
>
> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
And your failure to handle the errors shown in your logic is just
burning your limited time you have left.
If you want to get somewhere, and the path you are trying doesn't seem
to get you there, it is just insanity to keep on trying the same thing
over and over.
>
> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>
> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
> then we can move on to the next point.
But to get there, you need to show how to disprove my two examples that
shouw your claim wrong.
That, or you are just admitting that you don't actually care about
finding the truth, but are just interested in seeing who you can get to
fall for your lies.
>
>>> --
>>> 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-03 07:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v12mlh$i3tc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104243 |
On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>>
>>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will
>>> proceed
>>> to L6 and terminate.
>>>
>>
>> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
>> specification.
>>
>>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>
>>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks
>>> understanding,
>>> not everybody else.
>>>
>>
>> If that was true then four people would not have been able
>> to correctly answer the question.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>>> agreeing to.
>>
>> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>>
>>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>>
>>>>>> (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.
>>>
>>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
>>> too.
>>>
>>
>> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
>> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
>> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
>> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
>> that I am correct.
>
> Since I presented two counter examples, which you have not even
> attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are
> nothing but a LIAR.
>
FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO INTENTIONALLY
MISINTERPRET MY WORDS I ADDED A PARAGRAPH
(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.
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.
If you did provide such a counter-example you mixed it in with far
too much off topic material that I stopped reading.
I will always do this. The first time you change the subject
I will stop reading and post the above.
> To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if
> not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive fraud
> that changed the election.
>
> Actually, a lot worse, They at least can use the priciple that lack of
> evidence is not evidence of lack (there could be evidence that we just
> don't see), but in your case, there IS evidence that you just refuse to
> look at and process.
>
> Proving you are just a pathological liar that can't handle the truth.
>
>>
>>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>
>>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>>
>> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
>> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
>> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
>>
>
> Nope, I guess you don't understand that 0 is a number, so simulating for
> 0 steps CAN be consisdered a simulation by basic logic.
0 steps simulated is
---D(D) never simulated by H---
thus not
---D(D) simulated by H---
<to be posed again and again until addressed>
*FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO INTENTIONALLY*
*MISINTERPRET MY WORDS I ADDED A PARAGRAPH*
(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.
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.
*I stopped reading right here*
</to be posed again and again until addressed>
In the future as soon as I first see that you are not addressing
the above point I will stop reading, tell you I stopped reading
and post the above two paragraphs again.
>
> After all, you consider not simulating the Call H instruction to be a
> correct simulation.
>
>>> Again, it's
>>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>>
>>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>
>>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>>
>> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
>> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
>> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
>> counter-example.
>
> Nope.
>
> Just shows you don't understand what I was talking about.
>
> Your "definition" of the correct answer allows virtual all "program" to
> be declaired non-halting if they do not IMMEDIATELY halt.
>
> That is because H's simulation of course can't reach the final state if
> the H aborts its simulation before it gets there, as by quickly
> aborting, H can show that H can't simulate to the final state, since it
> didn't.
>
>
>>
>>> My
>>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>>
>>
>> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
>> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
>> set of H/D pair C functions.
>
> But you haven't been able to define what you actually mean about that.
>
> If you have an infinite set of machines as the input, some that halt and
> some don't, what it *THE* answer?
>
> You ere just demonstrating that you don't understand how to define what
> you are trying to do, likely because "definitions" are a basis for
> "Truth" and you have decided that trivial things like that can't get in
> your way of proving this idea you have.
>
>>
>> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
>> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
>
> And your failure to handle the errors shown in your logic is just
> burning your limited time you have left.
>
> If you want to get somewhere, and the path you are trying doesn't seem
> to get you there, it is just insanity to keep on trying the same thing
> over and over.
>
>>
>> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
>> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>
>> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
>> then we can move on to the next point.
>
> But to get there, you need to show how to disprove my two examples that
> shouw your claim wrong.
>
> That, or you are just admitting that you don't actually care about
> finding the truth, but are just interested in seeing who you can get to
> fall for your lies.
>
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>
>
--
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 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v145un$c30$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104260 |
On 5/3/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>>>
>>>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>>>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>>>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will
>>>> proceed
>>>> to L6 and terminate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
>>> specification.
>>>
>>>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks
>>>> understanding,
>>>> not everybody else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was true then four people would not have been able
>>> to correctly answer the question.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>>>> agreeing to.
>>>
>>> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
>>>
>>>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>>>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>>>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>
>>>> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their
>>>> "verifications",
>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
>>> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
>>> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
>>> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
>>> that I am correct.
>>
>> Since I presented two counter examples, which you have not even
>> attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are
>> nothing but a LIAR.
>>
>
> FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO INTENTIONALLY
> MISINTERPRET MY WORDS I ADDED A PARAGRAPH
> (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.
>
> 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.
Th
>
> If you did provide such a counter-example you mixed it in with far
> too much off topic material that I stopped reading.
>
> I will always do this. The first time you change the subject
> I will stop reading and post the above.
Then you admit you are a liar when you say I didn't say something that
zI did say?
Note, you even elsewhere commented that you DID reply to my comment,
even though you didn't.
Just shows how much of a liar you are
>
>> To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if
>> not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive
>> fraud that changed the election.
>>
>> Actually, a lot worse, They at least can use the priciple that lack of
>> evidence is not evidence of lack (there could be evidence that we just
>> don't see), but in your case, there IS evidence that you just refuse
>> to look at and process.
>>
>> Proving you are just a pathological liar that can't handle the truth.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
>>>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
>>>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
>>>
>>> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
>>> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
>>> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, I guess you don't understand that 0 is a number, so simulating
>> for 0 steps CAN be consisdered a simulation by basic logic.
>
> 0 steps simulated is
> ---D(D) never simulated by H---
> thus not
> ---D(D) simulated by H---
But if there are 0 Foos, then we can say that all foos are bars.
>
> <to be posed again and again until addressed>
> *FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO INTENTIONALLY*
> *MISINTERPRET MY WORDS I ADDED A PARAGRAPH*
> (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.
>
> 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.
Yep, my two counter examples meet that requirement.
>
> *I stopped reading right here*
> </to be posed again and again until addressed>
>
> In the future as soon as I first see that you are not addressing
> the above point I will stop reading, tell you I stopped reading
> and post the above two paragraphs again.
Then stop LYING about me not addressing things.
You are just proving you don't understand the meaning of the word truth.
>
>>
>> After all, you consider not simulating the Call H instruction to be a
>> correct simulation.
>>
>>>> Again, it's
>>>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>>>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>>>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>>>
>>>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>>>
>>>> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
>>>
>>> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
>>> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
>>> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
>>> counter-example.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Just shows you don't understand what I was talking about.
>>
>> Your "definition" of the correct answer allows virtual all "program"
>> to be declaired non-halting if they do not IMMEDIATELY halt.
>>
>> That is because H's simulation of course can't reach the final state
>> if the H aborts its simulation before it gets there, as by quickly
>> aborting, H can show that H can't simulate to the final state, since
>> it didn't.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> My
>>>> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
>>>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
>>> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
>>> set of H/D pair C functions.
>>
>> But you haven't been able to define what you actually mean about that.
>>
>> If you have an infinite set of machines as the input, some that halt
>> and some don't, what it *THE* answer?
>>
>> You ere just demonstrating that you don't understand how to define
>> what you are trying to do, likely because "definitions" are a basis
>> for "Truth" and you have decided that trivial things like that can't
>> get in your way of proving this idea you have.
>>
>>>
>>> Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
>>> that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.
>>
>> And your failure to handle the errors shown in your logic is just
>> burning your limited time you have left.
>>
>> If you want to get somewhere, and the path you are trying doesn't seem
>> to get you there, it is just insanity to keep on trying the same thing
>> over and over.
>>
>>>
>>> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
>>> survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>>>
>>> After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
>>> then we can move on to the next point.
>>
>> But to get there, you need to show how to disprove my two examples
>> that shouw your claim wrong.
>>
>> That, or you are just admitting that you don't actually care about
>> finding the truth, but are just interested in seeing who you can get
>> to fall for your lies.
>>
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-02 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v10qui$1hvc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104209 |
On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
>
>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>
> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
> to L6 and terminate.
>
*Not if you are paying close attention to the original post*
// The following is written in C
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 D(D);
15 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 14: main() invokes D(D)
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
Is it dead obvious to everyone here when examining the execution
trace of lines 14 and 06 above that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly terminate normally by reaching its own line 09?
>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>
> It's not a matter of "understanding". It's you that lacks understanding,
> not everybody else.
>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for the citation. But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
> agreeing to. You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
> post.
>
>>>> (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.
>
> Their names, please. And the dates and places of their "verifications",
> too.
>
>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>
> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet. It's
> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic. Richard has pointed out
> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them. Again, it's
> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>
>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>
> There you go again. Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified. My
> understanding of it is not in question. It is you who appear to lack
> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
--
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 | 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0rsbv$2m1nf$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104115 |
On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> The ONLY way that we can determine if any computation is correct is
>>>>> when it meets its specification. When a TM is specified to calculate
>>>>> the sum of a pair of decimal integers and it derives any decimal
>>>>> integer other than 5 from inputs 2,3 then it is incorrect.
>>
>>>> Changing the subject. The question is not whether it is correct, but
>>>> whether it halts. Incorrect programs exist and even those program may
>>>> halt.
>>
>>> I had to address this:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine. It is either
>>>> running, or has reached a final state. In the TM equivalent of "core
>>>> dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
>>
>> I would indeed be charmed if you would address it, but you have evaded
>> it, as you have evaded most of the points I made yesterday.
>>
>> Note that I said there is no correctness _IN_ a turing machine. This is
>> independent of whether or not that turing machine is useful for some
>> external purpose.
>>
>> Note also that you wilfully distorted my meaning by trimming. The full
>> context was:
>>
>>>>> Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
>>>>> correctly finished its processing.
>>
>>>> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine. It is either
>>>> running, or has reached a final state. In the TM equivalent of "core
>>>> dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
>>
>> Your use of the word "correctly" in "correctly finished its processing"
>> is wrong. A turing machine is either running or it's finished its
>> processing. From the point of view of the tm, there is no "correct" or
>> "incorrect" associated with the latter condition; it's simply reached a
>> final state.
>>
>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a final
>> state.
>>
>
> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} 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.
>
Why?
That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
you get into that issue.
Your problem is you want to try to define "Halting" as something that
can ALWAYS be measured finitely. Yes, that makes it decidable, but makes
it also not the same as the actual halting.
It also gets very hard (if not impossible) to define it in terms that
can ACTUALLY be measured finitely, and also not have a trivial decay path.
>>> --
>>> 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 23:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0sgcm$2varu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104128 |
On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>>>> The ONLY way that we can determine if any computation is correct is
>>>>>> when it meets its specification. When a TM is specified to calculate
>>>>>> the sum of a pair of decimal integers and it derives any decimal
>>>>>> integer other than 5 from inputs 2,3 then it is incorrect.
>>>
>>>>> Changing the subject. The question is not whether it is correct, but
>>>>> whether it halts. Incorrect programs exist and even those program may
>>>>> halt.
>>>
>>>> I had to address this:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine. It is either
>>>>> running, or has reached a final state. In the TM equivalent of "core
>>>>> dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
>>>
>>> I would indeed be charmed if you would address it, but you have evaded
>>> it, as you have evaded most of the points I made yesterday.
>>>
>>> Note that I said there is no correctness _IN_ a turing machine. This is
>>> independent of whether or not that turing machine is useful for some
>>> external purpose.
>>>
>>> Note also that you wilfully distorted my meaning by trimming. The full
>>> context was:
>>>
>>>>>> Core dump abnormal termination does not count as the program
>>>>>> correctly finished its processing.
>>>
>>>>> There is no notion of "correct" in a turing machine. It is either
>>>>> running, or has reached a final state. In the TM equivalent of "core
>>>>> dump", a final state has most definitely been reached.
>>>
>>> Your use of the word "correctly" in "correctly finished its processing"
>>> is wrong. A turing machine is either running or it's finished its
>>> processing. From the point of view of the tm, there is no "correct" or
>>> "incorrect" associated with the latter condition; it's simply reached a
>>> final state.
>>>
>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a final
>>> state.
>>>
>>
>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} 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.
>>
>
> Why?
>
> That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
>
Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an
aborted simulation ends up in.
On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
> isn't a final state.
> Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
> you get into that issue.
>
"The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
The whole field of *termination analysis* is directly related
to halting.
WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination
University Center Obergurgl, University of Innsbruck
Obergurgl, Austria, August 24-25, 2023
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
> Your problem is you want to try to define "Halting" as something that
> can ALWAYS be measured finitely. Yes, that makes it decidable, but makes
> it also not the same as the actual halting.
>
> It also gets very hard (if not impossible) to define it in terms that
> can ACTUALLY be measured finitely, and also not have a trivial decay path.
>
>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>
>
--
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]
Page 13 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web