Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 409 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:32 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:09 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:23 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-10 07:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9pi$9doe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333839 |
On 5/8/2024 8:32 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 7/05/24 05:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>
>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>
>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>
>
> Does the one that simulates ∞ steps terminate?
Message-ID: <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org>
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D)
>> is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot
>> possibly reach past its own line 03. Simple software
>> engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
--
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 | 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333681 |
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>> stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> 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 int 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.
>>
>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333752 |
On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> 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 int 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.
>>>
>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>
>
> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I
have shown that your claim is incorrect.
If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a specific
template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333759 |
On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>
>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>
>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>
>
> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I
> have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
as complete proof of huge election fraud.
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
NOT telling the truth.
> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a specific
> template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>
Is your memory really that bad?
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 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333761 |
On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>> enables
>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of
>>>>> its
>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>> matches a
>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>
>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>
>>
>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I
>> have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>
>
> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the
absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that
actually simulates the input to the end state.
Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect that
there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the rules of
logic say the person asserting the existance of something has the burden
of proof.
Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it
means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>
> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
> NOT telling the truth.
Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it, call
myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and you can
not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop posting your
insaine ideas about halting.
If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to
make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>
>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>
>
> Is your memory really that bad?
>
> 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 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>
> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>
> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must
simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
CHECK.
Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>
>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333764 |
On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>> enables
>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>> of its
>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this
>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H,
>>> I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>
> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the
> absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that
> actually simulates the input to the end state.
>
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect that
> there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the rules of
> logic say the person asserting the existance of something has the burden
> of proof.
>
> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it
> means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>
>
>>
>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>> NOT telling the truth.
>
> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>
> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it, call
> myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and you can
> not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop posting your
> insaine ideas about halting.
>
> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to
> make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>
>>
>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>
>>
>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>
>> 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>
>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>
>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>
> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must
> simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>
> CHECK.
>
> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>
>
>>
>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c8ne$9f72$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333766 |
On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this
>>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H,
>>>> I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>
>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the
>> absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that
>> actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>
>
> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
> (Until you change your tune).
>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the
>> rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something has
>> the burden of proof.
>>
>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it
>> means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>
>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>
>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
>> call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
>> you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
>> posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>
>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to
>> make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>
>>> 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 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>
>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>
>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>
>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must
>> simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>
>> CHECK.
>>
>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c8s6$3242s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333767 |
On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of
>>>>> H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>> construed
>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>
>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to
>>> the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine
>>> that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>
>>
>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>> (Until you change your tune).
>>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>
>
> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
> refering to,
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
> by saying it is.
>
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>
> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>>
>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
>>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the
>>> rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something
>>> has the burden of proof.
>>>
>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that
>>> it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>
>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>
>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
>>> call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
>>> you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
>>> posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>
>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to
>>> make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>
>>>> 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 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>
>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>
>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>
>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must
>>> simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>
>>> CHECK.
>>>
>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c9gn$9f73$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333769 |
On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of
>>>>>> H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>> construed
>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>
>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to
>>>> the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine
>>>> that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>> refering to,
>
> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
> (Until you change your tune).
>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
>> it is.
>>
>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>
>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>> lair.
>>
>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
>>>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the
>>>> rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something
>>>> has the burden of proof.
>>>>
>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that
>>>> it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>
>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
>>>> call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
>>>> you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
>>>> posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>
>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough
>>>> to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>
>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>
>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>
>>>> CHECK.
>>>>
>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1c9m6$325ls$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333771 |
On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of
>>>>>>>>> pairs
>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of
>>>>>>> H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated
>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>>> construed
>>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>>
>>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to
>>>>> the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine
>>>>> that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>
>>>> When you interpret
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>
>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>> refering to,
>>
>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>> (Until you change your tune).
>>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>
>
> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>
>
> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
> refering to,
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
> by saying it is.
>
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>
> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>>
>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
>>> it is.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>
>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>>> lair.
>>>
>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
>>>>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that
>>>>> the rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of
>>>>> something has the burden of proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that
>>>>> it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
>>>>> call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
>>>>> you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
>>>>> posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough
>>>>> to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> CHECK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333773 |
On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of
>>>>>>>>>> pairs
>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design
>>>>>>>> of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated
>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>>>> construed
>>>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to
>>>>>> the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine
>>>>>> that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>>
>>>>> When you interpret
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>>> refering to,
>>>
>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>>
>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>> refering to,
>
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>
> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
As I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to,
and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
>> it is.
>>
>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>
>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>> lair.
>>
>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by
>>>> saying it is.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>>
>>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you
>>>> are lair.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>>>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are
>>>> just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
>>>>>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that
>>>>>> the rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of
>>>>>> something has the burden of proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny
>>>>>> that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post
>>>>>> it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post
>>>>>> it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will
>>>>>> stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough
>>>>>> to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CHECK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1deh9$3a1rb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333776 |
On 5/7/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step
>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of
>>>>>>>>>>> pairs
>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design
>>>>>>>>> of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated
>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>>>>> construed
>>>>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads
>>>>>>> to the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a
>>>>>>> machine that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you interpret
>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I
>>>>> was refering to,
>>>>
>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>
>>>> When you interpret
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>
>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
>>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>> refering to,
>>
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>
>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>
>
> You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
>
> As I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to,
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it
> is.
>
Everyone can see that I am not the liar here.
Everyone can see that I am not the liar here.
Everyone can see that I am not the liar here.
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>
> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>>
>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
>>> it is.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>
>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>>> lair.
>>>
>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by
>>>>> saying it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you
>>>>> are lair.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I
>>>>> guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and
>>>>> are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they
>>>>>>> neglect that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud
>>>>>>> and that the rules of logic say the person asserting the
>>>>>>> existance of something has the burden of proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny
>>>>>>> that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post
>>>>>>> it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post
>>>>>>> it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you
>>>>>>> will stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure
>>>>>>> enough to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CHECK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1entj$cp5r$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333778 |
On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: > It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. > If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you > can't be trusted on the next. And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have been proven to lie many times in the past.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eo9u$3nb4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333792 |
On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: > >> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >> can't be trusted on the next. > > And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have > been proven to lie many times in the past. I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same point. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1ep5l$cp5s$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333796 |
On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >>> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >>> can't be trusted on the next. >> >> And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have >> been proven to lie many times in the past. > > I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove > that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional > spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. > That is a LIE. You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just like that pillow guy. > That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy > claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on > the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same > point. > Nope, I have SHOWN the proof. YOU ignored it. Are you willing to put up or shut up? or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them. I guess you are just a chicken liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eqpg$3nnch$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333804 |
On 5/7/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >>>> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >>>> can't be trusted on the next. >>> >>> And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have >>> been proven to lie many times in the past. >> >> I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove >> that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional >> spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. >> > > That is a LIE. > > You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just > like that pillow guy. > > >> That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy >> claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on >> the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same >> point. >> > > Nope, I have SHOWN the proof. > > YOU ignored it. > I completely ignored all of your messages for quite a while, possibly weeks. Most of your messages were hardly anything bedsides ad hominem attacks. > Are you willing to put up or shut up? > > or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false > statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them. > > I guess you are just a chicken liar. You have never not even once gone through every single detail of any of my reasoning. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1fo8i$dt8i$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333808 |
On 5/7/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >>>>> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >>>>> can't be trusted on the next. >>>> >>>> And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have >>>> been proven to lie many times in the past. >>> >>> I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove >>> that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional >>> spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. >>> >> >> That is a LIE. >> >> You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just >> like that pillow guy. >> >> >>> That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy >>> claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on >>> the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same >>> point. >>> >> >> Nope, I have SHOWN the proof. >> >> YOU ignored it. >> > > I completely ignored all of your messages for quite > a while, possibly weeks. Most of your messages were > hardly anything bedsides ad hominem attacks. And thus you can not honestly claim that I didn't say something. Thus, when you say no one has refuted you, you are saying a statement you know might not be true, and thus, you admit you LIE. And thus, by your logic, people should not believe anything you say. Are you going to show that you trust your own ideas, and risk promising to stop if you are actually wrong? > >> Are you willing to put up or shut up? >> >> or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false >> statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them. >> >> I guess you are just a chicken liar. > > You have never not even once gone through every single > detail of any of my reasoning. > I have gone thorough enough to show it is wrong. Note, to prove something wrong, you need to find AN error, not ALL the errors. You are just proving you don't understand how logic works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333776 |
On 5/7/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step
>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of
>>>>>>>>>>> pairs
>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design
>>>>>>>>> of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated
>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>>>>> construed
>>>>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads
>>>>>>> to the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a
>>>>>>> machine that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you interpret
>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I
>>>>> was refering to,
>>>>
>>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>>
>>>> When you interpret
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>
>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
>>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>> refering to,
>>
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>
>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>
>
> You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
>
> As I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to,
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it
> is.
>
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth that
would win a defamation case.
The you claim that I am a liar and do not provide your
basis for this constitutes additional evidence of defamation.
I suspect that you already know you have no basis thus
your intent is purely malevolent.
Proving the "actual malice" of defamation cases need
not show your mental state or intent it only need show
that you showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Because I am not a public figure a preponderance of
evidence is enough to win my case.
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>
> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>>
>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
>>> it is.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>
>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>>> lair.
>>>
>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by
>>>>> saying it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you
>>>>> are lair.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>>>>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>>>>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I
>>>>> guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and
>>>>> are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they
>>>>>>> neglect that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud
>>>>>>> and that the rules of logic say the person asserting the
>>>>>>> existance of something has the burden of proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny
>>>>>>> that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post
>>>>>>> it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post
>>>>>>> it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you
>>>>>>> will stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure
>>>>>>> enough to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CHECK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eaov$ca07$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333783 |
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: > Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth > about any specific point it is correct to assume any other > assertions about this same point are also false until evidence > arises to the contrary. Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. PERIOD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1edj0$3he4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333788 |
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: > >> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >> arises to the contrary. > > Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. > > PERIOD. *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> *When you interpret* On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* *stop running unless aborted by H* as *D NEVER simulated by H* you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth that would win a defamation case. *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* -- 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 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web