Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/3/2024 9:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/3/2024 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-02 14:43:45 +0000, olcott said:

[ .... ]

This is not computer science it is only software engineering.

Therefore not convincing.

We must have agreement on verified facts before proceeding
otherwise people leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong
on the basis of not paying attention to what I am saying.

They say you are wrong on the basis of their superior education and
knowledge, as well as by reading what you write. 

I have found that it is actually merely pure bluster.

You are the only person here who says that.  You are mistaken, probably
on account of your inferior education and knowledge.

When reasoning is provided it is nonsense.

You are patently unqualified and unable to distinguish reason from
nonsense.

Richard "interpreted"
---D(D) simulated by H--- as ---D(D) NEVER simulated by H---

You completely missed his point.  Of course returning a "simulation"
after a small number of steps is nonsense.  He was pointing out that this
is what you are doing too, so what you are doing is nonsense, too.

You calling your (a) sentence "a verified fact" is you lying.

The fact that no one but Richard ever tried to provide
a counter-example showing that this is false

A counter example to verification?  What's that supposed to mean?  Your
lie consists of asserting that your sentence (a) is verified.  It is
clearly not - it is highly dubious and controversial.

(a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

It is not so verified.

*Is evidence that no counter-example exists*

Your logic is at fault, here.  The lack of a counter example is no proof
of a proposition.  The existence of a counter example is proof of the
negation of the proposition.

That you keep saying that I am wrong without providing any
counter-example is the pure bluster that my new system
of dialogue uncovers.

The burden of proof is on you.  You haven't proven (or "verified") it at
all.

You know full well that it is at best controversial, and likely highly
problematic.  If you were to define things fully, and talk in
non-vague language, something like your (a) might come to be regarded
as a fact.  We're some distance away from that happening.

*Tell me what you think is missing from this*

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 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

A detailed specification of H, for a start.  On that depends whether or
not your "verified fact" is a fact or is nonsense.

We are examining the behavior of D(D) for every possible H/D
pair where 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H.

What is N?  Note that Richard has done just this by taking N to be zero.

*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 01
Line 02
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

That needs a proof, something which cannot exist without a detailed
specification of H.

(a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

(b) Rebuttals must show a counter example where 1 to N steps
of D(D) are simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past
its own line 03.

Not at all.  The lack of a proof, or even a rigorous description, of the
simulation renders a rebuttal superfluous.

There is no judgment call here it is all empirical fact.

It's your fantasy.

Empirical facts are not proofs. That someting sometimes happened
some way does not generalize to other more or less similar things
at other times.

If you are telling the truth that D(D) simulated by H
is ambiguous to you then you have insufficient skill at C.

It is so vague as to be meaningless.  To give a rough outline of what you
are trying to do would take at least a paragraph.

Without further elaboration I have no basis to take this
as anything other than a falsehood.

Talking about C skills, the following lines of C that you have been
spamming this newsgroup with are syntactically incorrect.  This was
pointed out to you several months ago, and you have not fixed the problem
since.  That suggests you have never tried to compile them, and thus
never run the "program" it's supposed to be a fragment of.  It also
suggests a lack of attention to detail, something essential to being a
skilled programmer.

What do you think is syntactically incorrect about them?

It would be a good exercise in learning C for you to work this out for
yourself.  Why have you never tested your spam on a compiler?  Do you
know how to use a C compiler?  Do you even know what a compiler is?

[ .... ]

And, note, you ARE spamming the newsgroup.  Anybody who wants to read
your invalid C code has already done so, likely many times.  You don't
need to keep posting it time after time after time.  Doing so could
conceivably lead to your being banned from posting.

I am requiring everyone that ever said that I am wrong to put up or
shut up.

Just who do you think you are, "requiring" actions from others?  This is
Usenet, and posters will post as they see fit.  As long as the
conventions of Usenet are adhered to, there is nothing you can do to
change this.

When I challenge them to show where and how I am wrong and they have
nothing, then everyone will see that these rebuttals were never more
than pure bluster.

Solid descriptions of your mistakes and falsehoods have been repeatedly
posted here, including in this thread.  You just pretend they don't
exist.  This is not something which will win you any friends.

I have solved the last computer science based objection yet will not
present that until after people prove that their review of my work is
an honest review on the basis that they agree to the verified facts of
the software engineering of my work.

That they will not even agree to verified facts proves that their side
of the dialogue is dishonest and it does so in a way that everyone can
see.

Your continued misuse of the term "verified fact" puts a very heavy
strain on your personal integrity.

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).