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

On 5/4/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

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.

>
Hardly, in your case.  You've been wrong so often in the past, and right
so seldomly, it's the way to bet.
>

Saying that you believe that I am wrong on the basis that I do not seem
to have credibility is not defamatory.

>
Agreed, it isn't.
>

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?

>
[ .... ]
>
Who cares?  Without knowing exactly what is meant by "simulation" and
what the specification of H is, it really isn't important.
>
[ .... ]
>

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.

>
What do you know about ordinary skill in the art of C programming?  You
still haven't corrected your frequently spammed 12 lines of C that I've
snipped.
>

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've never said your execution trace is false.  In one particular
circumstance (unknown), with an unknown H, I'm sure you can get that
execution trace.  That doesn't prove anything.
>

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"?

>
No response to this bit?

 When I assert verified facts and the rebuttal is pure rhetoric
with zero supporting reasoning I simply call BULLSHIT!

No, you assert things that have been disproved, and which you refuse to try to refute, and thus YOU are the liar.

 

>

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

>