Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++

On 5/7/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:

On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:

If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.

>
The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is different from the actual execution trace.
>
This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>

>
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 }
>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>
None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>
Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>
If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>

>
Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>
Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>

>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

>
>
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was refering to,

>
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
>

>
>
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>

>
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

>
>
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.

 *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*

No, it shows that you don't understand the nature of universaqualifiers.

 *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
 *I prove right here that you don't tell the truth*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
 

I did, and you ignore it, just like the election deniers, so you are just like them and the pillow guy.

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
 as *D NEVER simulated by H*
 you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

Nope.

 

And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>
>
Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
>
You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>

 *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
*You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
 

Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then I can stop refuting you.
>
>
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>

 *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
*You refuse to let me correct your misconceptions*
 *You can't prove that I even made a mistake*
*You refuse to let me correct your misconceptions*
 

You are just proving you can not actually read and understand.
>

>

>
Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
>
You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then I can stop refuting you.
>
>
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>

>

>