Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:47:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3og45$328ec$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3jei1$3o3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <0xqdnd8ktrnsc8D7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3l002$5d3$1@dont-email.me>
 <lZadnYLpbtuB7cP7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3lrm2$4h2j$1@dont-email.me> <v3lsd6$2uv04$17@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ltij$8gjv$3@dont-email.me> <v3lvc6$2uv03$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3nhuh$gatu$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 01:47:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3219916"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3nhuh$gatu$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3579
Lines: 50

On 6/4/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

> It might be good for you to quit calling me a liar, everyone here
> knows that I am not a liar. I don't see how you could be so confused
> to believe that I do not believe what I say. If you call me a liar
> knowing that I do believe what I say that might possibly get you
> condemned to Hell and I don't want that.
> 

But you ARE a LIAR, and I suspect you tell more lies than truth (or it 
might just seem that way).

For instance, you keep on saying that DD doesn't halt. but it does, and 
you have admitted as much for at least an essentially similar machine.

You CLEARLY stated that D(D) Halted since H(D,D) returned 0, but then 
tried to claim that for "reasons" (that you could never actually prove) 
H saying that a halting machine was non-halting was somehow "correct".

You last couple of years have been you fumbling around with many 
different (and flawed) arguments to try to show a reason that the 
definitionally incorrect answer was correct, and the best you have done 
is to just admit you are working on a different problem, but that you 
different problem should be though of a "good enough" because it must be 
to save the world, even though it needs to contradict all logic to do so.

> There is no need to show the 251 pages of the the execution trace of the 
> simulated HH simulating DD because we can conclusively proof that HH is 
> correctly simulating DD and the simulated DD is correctly simulating DD
> entirely on the basis that the execution traces provide exactly match
> the behavior specified by the x86 machine code of DD.

But it IS if you want to claim that is what it actually does, and then 
you need to show that your proof works with THAT trace, not the 
non-trace that you LIE to say is a "correcct trace" when it clearly 
fails to meet even your definition.


> 
> *The details are here*
> On 6/4/2024 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> [Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD)
>   simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry]
> 
> *I had to insert another paragraph into the original post*
> 

And why do we care about a "correct simulation" that is done by a 
definition that fails to meet the requirements to prove your ultimate 
statement?