XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 7/30/25 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/30/2025 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/29/25 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
[ .... ]
As usual incorrect claims without evidence.
Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation >>>>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as >>>>>>>> proven
by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The
infinity is
only in your dreams.
HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD calls
HHH(DDD)
HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD
DOES NOT
CALL HHH1(DDD)
At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.
As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are no
position to
call anybody else here a liar. Glass house inhabitants, throwing >>>>>> stones,
and all that.
And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by sticking to >>>>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous. Not any more.
That is
a most unwelcome change.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
*That not one single person here*
(besides those that I invited from the C groups)
acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies
recursive simulation
cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides
willful deception.
Foul mouthed lying on your part. It can be attributed to your lack of >>>> self awareness and lack of technical ability. Everybody here but
you can
see that.
It is not any lack of technical ability that determines
whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or
cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
Yes, it IS YOUR lack of technical ability the shows that you don't
know what you are talking about.
The function does do what it does do even if no one knows this.
But, to do what it does, it needs all of its code, and thus DDD includes
the code of HHH.
And, since HHH(DDD) returns 0, it always returns 0, even when DDD calls it.
Thus DDD() always Halts, unless you lieds that you HHH returns 0.
Since your HHH doesn't do a correct simulation per the definition of
the field, you claim that it does is just a lie.
HHH does emulate N x86 instructions of DDD correctly.
This includes the x86 instructions of DDD emulated by
the emulated HHH. No one can possibly correctly show
otherwise.
Rigth, but that doesn't say that the FULL simulation (which is what
shows halting / non-halting) won't reach the final state (which it
happens to do).
You are just showing you don't understand the meaning of "Halting"
thinking that it applies to partial simulations.
An aborted simulation doesn't make its input Halting, OR non-halting,
the the PARTIAL simulation by HHH doesn't define the halting behavior of
its input, despite the lies you try to tell yourself.
And logic based on lies is just unsound.
That you cannot even point out one mistake makes
you calling me a liar libelous. Instead of any
name calling try to stick with the actual facts.
Sure I have. Halting/Non-Halting is EXACTLY defined by the behavior of
the undistrubed running of a program, the program the input represents.
NOT a partial simulation of that input, that is just a LIE.
Instead of addressing this you used the dishonest dodge
of ad hominem attack. It is for this exact same reason
that I am justified in calling out liars.
No, the fact that you keep on misusing words is our justification for
calling you a lair.
There has never been any material mistake in anything
that I have said and you cannot show otherwise. The
reason that you resort to ad hominem attacks is that
you know that I never made any actual material mistakes.
Sure there have, and the fact that you leep claiming you haven't seen
any of them just shows how stupid you are.
*This is what I mean by proof*
*A proof is any sequence of steps deriving a necessary result*
WHich shows how you lie by wrong definition. A Proof has to START with
the accepted truths and definitions of the system. Something you neglect
ot do.
By your defintion you can prove anything.
The sequence of steps that I refer to is the execution trace
specified by the x86 instructions of my code.
Right, which continue to the final state, showing that DDD halts.
IT DOES NOT mean just some of the steps of the x86 execution trace, or a partial simulation of it,
The problem is there is not CORRECT going from your partial trace to the
claim of non-halting, you just ASSUME that fact. An that makes an ASS
our out of YOU, and I point out the error to avoid the error.
It seems you idea of logic is you get to make up what ever "facts" you
want, so you are just confirming the correctness of the climate change
deniers.
Trying to use your lies to justify calling someone else a liar just
shows your own stupidity.
You cannot even point to a single mistake.
If you had a sound basis then you could use
that and have no need of any ad hominem or insults.
Sure I hve. WIlling to make a put up or shut up bet.
If I can show where I have made a sound argument you admit your error
and leave usenet?
Note, I do NOT use ad hominem attacks, ss I point out the errors and use
them as the proof of the insults I use, and the insults are just a
retaliation for YOU starting it.
As soon as the first person utterly gives up dishonestly
trolling me and gives my work an actual fair review I
will treat that person with kindness and respect.
Sorry, but it is YOU that has been dishonestly trolling, and thus YOU
are the one that has lost the right to be treated with kindness and
respect.
I tried kindness and respect for many years and the trolls
took this as weakness to be exploited.
But still kept your ignorant lies.
That you cannot even correctly point to a single mistake
and that you calling me a liar anyway is libelous.
May you reap whatever you sow.
But I HAVE correctly pointed out your errors.
Care to have a day in court, loser pays all the costs?
It would be fun putting you under deposition admitting your errors.
I should be able to get a summary judgement, as you would be able to
present a case that stands up to legal scrutiny.
Might cost you the money you need to pay for your treatments.
Sorry, you have killed any hope of being respected, and cemented your
place in the trashheap of history.
You have proved that you turned yourself into an intentional idiot,
with no idea of the actual meaning of the word, because you were
afraid that the TRUTH would brainwash you into thinking about reality.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)