Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case

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)
Note, showing that this H didn't simulate past the point, doesn't actually PROVE that no H can, and even if you do, that doesn't prove that the input is non-halting.

 It is proven that the simulated H produces a correct execution
trace of D by the trace that is provided and the source-code of D.

No, you might prove that THIS H produces a correct PARTIAL execution trace of D.

 It is proven that this is the simulated H by its different stack space.
That you simply ignored this proof and called me a liar on this
same issue WINS DEFAMATION CASES.

Since you havn't provided sucn a trace, I can't have commented on it.
The traces you have provided previous, were CLEARLY not the traces you were claiming.

 That your disregard for the truth is willful and INTENTIONAL
is conclusively proven by your refusal to look at these things now.

Nope. Your inability to understand that your lies are lies does not make my statement lies.

 

>
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
>

>
Which is  strawman question, which is just another form of deception.
>
>