Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

 

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

 [ .... ]
 

You are doing better than Alan on this though he doesn't
have a single clue about what execution traces are or how
they work.

 

You should read "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale
Carnegie.  You may not care about the former, but you sure are trying
the latter.  Hint: telling nasty lies about people is not effective.

 

The alternative of disparaging my work without even looking at
it is far worse because it meets the

 

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

 

required for libel and defamation cases.

 No.  There have got to be limits on what one spends ones time on.  You

None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without looking at what
I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe that I am wrong
on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility is not defamatory.

have been maintaining false things over the years to such a degree that
it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect brilliant insights from
you.  For example, you insist that robustly proven mathematical theorems
are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word.
 

Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
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 }
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
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.
Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory because anyone
with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can determine that
it is true by verifying that the execution trace is correct.
When you say it is false by either not verifying that the execution
trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces are <is>
defamatory.

I prefer honest dialogues. Whenever the other party diverges from this
I will call it out. It may be fun to have an insult party until this
makes one look ridiculously foolish.

 You do NOT prefer honest dialogues at all.  You are not prepared, ever,
to admit where you are wrong.  You seem to insist that everybody else
takes your pronouncements at face value.  You do not appear to try to
understand others' points of view, even (especially?) where they are
right.
 How is that "honest dialogue"?
 

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

 

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