Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106856
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case |
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v45pqp$3ph0$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <v45lak$3h641$3@i2pn2.org> <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me> <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org> <v45p0t$35nk$1@dont-email.me> <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/9/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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*
>>>
>>> Another Lie. (Read the message you trimed)
>>>
>>>> *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*
>>>
>>> Another Lie. (Read the messsage you trimed)
>>>
>>>> *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
>>>> *WINS DEFAMATION CASES*
>>>
>>> Nope, since my words are correct, you have no case.
>>>
>>> Do you REALLY want to have to testify on the stand before a jury of
>>> "normal" people and try to explain your idea to them and convince tem
>>> that you are telling the truth.
>>>
>>> Think you could stand the counter claims?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>
>>> Nope, Never *PROVEN*
>>>
>>> And not by the right defintion of "Correctly SImulated" to claim
>>> not-halting.
>>>
>>>> *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*
>>>
>>> Nope, remember, you still havn't correctly simulated the call H
>>> instruction, and have instructions listed that were never actual
>>> gotten to again.
>>>
>>
>> I think that found the spot in the source-code to insert the
>> display of the simulated lines of H simulated by H. This
>> might only be 100 pages of output.
>
> So do it. And then provide an analysis where you show how you PROVE your
> statement. (And be clear exactly what statement you are claiming to prove)
>
Perhaps you have always been hiding your lack of sufficient
technical competence?
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
This has ALWAYS proved that D is correctly simulated by H.
The derived execution trace of D simulated by H proves that
it simulated the steps correctly and in the correct order.
The H simulated by H produces another correct trace proves
that its trace is correct too.
--
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