Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106859
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case |
| Date | 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v45qpe$3h642$4@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me> <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org> <v45p0t$35nk$1@dont-email.me> <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org> <v45pqp$3ph0$2@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 6/9/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Nope, Since D(D) Halts, the answer of 0 is NOT correct, and H has NOT
proven that no such simulation can halt.
>
> 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.
>
And your criterea for "Infinitely nested simulation are not proven to be
correct.
In fact, I remember showing that with those rules, there can be an input
whose "correct simulation" would halt, that being the simulation of
utm(D,D) where D is built on your H.
Thus, it is proved that your pattern does NOT indicate that the input
has "infinitely nested simulation", just perhaps that H can not simulate
its input to its final return, which doesn't matter.
Since you reference "the halting problem" the definition of "correct
simulation" must include that of a UTM on the input
So, all you are doing is proving that you have being lying about
incorrect results for years.
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