Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies

Am Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:21:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/18/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jun.2024 om 05:33 schreef olcott:

Again, how can you claim a "Correct Simulation" by the exact
definition of the x86 instruction set, when you omit the call H
instruction, and then "jump" to an addres that was never jumped to
at any point later in the program.

You just aren't bright enough to see simple truths that every
programmer can see.
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt. That this
truth is so simple lead me to believe that you were lying about it
instead of ordinary cluelessness.

DDD halts iff H0 halts.

But the question isn't DDD correctly simulated by H0, but does DDD
itself, when run halt.

The proof that you are wrong is over your head.

That is just a lying Dodge.

Yes it is.

An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by
claiming the other couldn't understand it.

I calls em as I see em.

Then you should be able to explain it.

Nope, you have lied to yourself about it for two decades, but can't
actually show it other, because it isn't true.

If it was merely me lying to myself then there would not be two PhD
computer science professors that agree with me that there is something
wrong with the halting problem.

1
Something? What is it then?

If you had a fundamental flaw that actually broke the system, you could
just show it.

But you can't.

I and two PhD computer science professors did show yet you are so
convinced that they are wrong that you refuse to pay attention.

2

It isn't that everyone else is wrong, it is YOU are wrong, but are too
bulheaded to accept it.

Everyone else is beguiled by the dogma and actively denigrates those
that know the truth to the extent of ruining their careers.

You are SO close.

Actually you understand it better than most experts in the field. The
clueless ones believe that this sentence is a truth without a
truthmaker: "This sentence has no truthmaker."

Do you think that sentence is true?

Do that just makes you a LIAR, and so that is what you are.

*Calling me a liar may get you sent to actual Hell*

Nope, since it is a truth, it isn't a lie.

Presuming yourself to be infallible may be blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
I never made the mistake of presuming myself to be infallible.

This is just perfect.

Truth seems to be something beyound your understanding since you have
lied to yourself so long.

Two PhD computer science professors agree with me.

3 arguments from authority.

That you have a religious conviction that I am incorrect is a bias
that prevents you from trying to actually understand what I am saying.

Funny how you bring up religion.

It isn't a "religious" conviction, but a knowledge of how logic
actually works.

Logic is not the measure of truth. Classical and Symbolic logic has
flaws. Truth preserving operations from expressions stipulated to be
true corrects all of the errors of logic.

That is how logic works. It's the best tool we have for truth.

If you don't see how claiming that an answer that is wrong by
definition is right is illogical, you are just beyound hope.

When definitions derive incoherence that we know that they are
incorrect.

Exactly. Like that simulators can just not simulate. The definition of the
halting problem is perfectly well-defined.

--
joes