Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability

On 5/9/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/9/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2024 7:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 09 May 2024 04:05:14 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>

I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance
that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support
of your claims.  Not that I can really enforce this, but I think for the
most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement
you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>
You understand the reason I ask this:  you are unfortunately completely
unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you
(mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your
argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that
[something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of
context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>
If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those views /as
your own words/, but none of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert
(lol) has agreed that..." and so on.  Those are attempts to silence
opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to
be involved in that.
>
Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will be in
context :)
>
Mike.

>
Hello Mike, are you one of the „experts” Olcott quotes? I would be
interested in what your original concession regarding the code was.
Have a nice day
>

>
>
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
>
I prefer to achieve 100% mutual agreement on the verbatim language
of any paraphrase of position and get specific permission to quote
these exact words as I have done with professor Sipser and one more
top expert in a different field.
>

>
And, as has been shown with your qoutes from professor Sipser, you "interprete" his words in ways that do not match what he would mean with those words, because you just don't know what those words means to someone knoledgable in the field.
>
For instance, the only "correct simulation" that Prof Sipser would be thinking of would be that of a UTM, so the only meaning to him of a "correct simulation" not ending would be a machine, that when directly run, never reaches a final state.

 On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
Usenet Article Lookup http://al.howardknight.net/
USENET Message-ID: <ti9fd0$1unl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 *I am not going to move on to any other point while*
*you continue to lie about an easily verified fact*
 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.
 

This statement has been proven WRONG, as I posted a message describing in enough detail to easily create such a program H.
This shows that your statement is just wrong.
YOU need to decide either to accept my statement, or show that my idea is wrong, or show that I did not post an idea.
If you accept my statement, you can't continue to make your erroneous claims, but will need to either refine your method, or preferably just abandon it.
You can't prove that I didn't say something, unless you can actually exhaustively search the material (at which point you will find my messsage). Since I know what I posted, I am sure you can't prove that I didn't say it.
Thus, your only path forward that doesn't accept my claim, is to try to refute what I said, which requires that find out what I said.
So, you need to choos what to do, either just continue repeating statements that are false, but that you think must be true dispite being told they have been proven false.
Or, you need to find the statement to refute it. You could try looking for it, but it seems you don't understand how to do that, or you are just unwilling to, or you can get me to point out the statement.
Just demanding will not work, I have no need to help you, and pointing out (truthfully) that I have posted it, is enough to make the point (since YOU have the burden of proof).
I have given you a simple solution if you are actually sure that I am lying (which I am not) of agreeing to stop if I show you wrong. The fact that you do NOT take up this options, just shows that you are not sure of your facts, which makes you repeated assertion of them as unconditionally true as just a known lie.
So, you have really gotten yourself in a pickle. YOU need to admit that you have said statements you know might not be true, to be able to move forward, or do the work to find the statements and then try to refute them (which you won't) or try to reformulate your "proof"