Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:27:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3og6b$328ec$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ogh9$pi6u$1@dont-email.me> <v3oi5t$328ec$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me> <v3ojg2$328eb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me> <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me> <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3plp1$v133$2@dont-email.me> <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me> <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me> <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v3rj3n$1cnit$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5gt$36git$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:27:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6sndq0L3u/4CqRPj5NE4D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BgoZYctIcm4qroNOY+B5ZaGScUs=
In-Reply-To: <v3s5gt$36git$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7221

On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/6/24 1:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't 
>>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line 
>>>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a 
>>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down 
>>>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to 
>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn 
>>>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, 
>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless 
>>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because 
>>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>
>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I 
>>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>
>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I 
>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>
>>
>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY WHOLE PROOF*
>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
> 
> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am 
> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
> 

One thing that your above statement does prove is that your every
prior attempt of CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal on this point
really was the strawman deception, thus deception.

*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*

THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT

*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*

*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf


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