Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:11:47 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:11:47 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7496 Lines: 134 On 6/7/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 11:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 11:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a >>>>>>>> way to not-prove the thing you were trying to prove >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No you are just a Liar >>>>>> >>>>>> Then try to show it. >>>>>> >>>>> I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your whole >>>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception fake rebuttal has always simply >>>>> ignored the proof that I am correct shown below: >>>>> >>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >>>>> >>>>> _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 >>>>> >>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the >>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior >>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation >>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And your last statement proves why you have the problem. >>>> >>> >>> >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>> stop running unless aborted then >>> >>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >> >> And for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that accurated >> reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed machine, > > I provide conclusive proof otherwise and your "rebuttal" is > that you are unwilling to examine my proof, after three years > of misleading strawman deception fake "rebuttals". No, you don't. It seems > > On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > 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. > > > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. Why? I have shown that is a useless question for the problem. > > _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 > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated > by HH and simulated in the correct order. > > Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior > of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation > of the above definition of correct simulation. Nope, To say that it doesn't need to report on the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is a violation of the definition of a Halt Decider. Now, your claim may be correct about POOP deciders, that need to decide on the behavior of the correct simulation of the input by the decider using that definition, but you can't even prove that this would be a correct question to ask a decider. > > After three years of "rebuttal" of my proof using the dishonest > dodge of the strawman deception shows a reckless disregard for > the truth of defamation cases. > > a reckless laf attention to the truth that misleads > or deceives another > https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html > Which is exactly what YOU are doing and projecting. You use the strawman, claiming Halting is "closes enough" to your POOP question of the behavior of the correct simulation of the decider. You ignore that DD(DD) has been shown to Halt whenever HH(DD,DD) returns 0, as your own reckless disregard for the truth. I suspect that I could mount a reasonable case for YOUR defamation of me, but I suspect you don't have anything worth going through the process to collect, since a sick idiot like you likely doesn't have any resources free. Remember, YOU are the one claiming the exraordinary claim that established facts are wrong, so YOU Have the burder of proof, which you have shown you can not actually provide. Just an endless series of baseless claims that have no actual foundation in any established theory. But then, you never studied the theory, so you don't understand the problems. Just like when Bugs walked off the clift and didn't fall, because "He didn't study law"