Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106851
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case |
| Date | 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org> <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me> <v45jqr$3h642$3@i2pn2.org> <v45kiu$3ue8q$2@dont-email.me> <v45lak$3h641$3@i2pn2.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 void
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(ptr
>>>>>>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 03 P(I);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>> 08 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13 int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16 }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD)
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite
>>>>>>>>>> recursion is
>>>>>>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>>>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution
>>>>>>>>> "correct".
>>>>>>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>>>>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>>>>>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so
>>>>>>> you are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
>>>>>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to
>>>>> clearify the meaning of it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When someone "questions what you mean by something"
>>>> by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several times
>>> after being corrected.
>>>
>>> That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.
>>>
>>
>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>>
>>
>
> Then stop Lying!
>
*I never have lied and you know it*
*THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*
*AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
*WINS DEFAMATION CASES*
*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that
the x86 source-code of D exactly matches the two execution
traces that I provided. *It is much easier to see in Google Groups*
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
[Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating
partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500
csiph-web