Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:24:38 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <78af1e5d6ccb3025f0e6b9af1c99031c8802f619@i2pn2.org> References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me> <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me> <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me> <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me> <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org> <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me> <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org> <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me> <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org> <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me> <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org> <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me> <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@i2pn2.org> <v62f92$20moo$3@dont-email.me> <623debd817e63a256100bb15fed3af8d4fb969fe@i2pn2.org> <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me> <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@i2pn2.org> <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me> <v65emv$2l5il$1@dont-email.me> <v6651v$2oun1$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:24:38 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v6651v$2oun1$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5555 Lines: 102 On 7/4/24 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-03 13:27:40 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser >>>>>>>>>>>>> kernelization process >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the x86 language says the same thing, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not >>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree >>>>>>>>>>> with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that >>>>>>>>>>> called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ. >>>>>>>>>>> I really want to do the best I can to repent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is >>>>>>>>> incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively >>>>>>>>> proves that it is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues >>>>>>>> to the final end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are >>>>>>> false? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately >>>>>> loop in the emulation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>> >>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself >>>>>> a fully correct emulator. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an >>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth >>>> is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>> >>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>> >>> >>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >> >> No, it has not. When it sees a repeating state first time there is no way >> to know that it is a repeating state. > You are incompetent No, YOU are incompetent, and have admitted such. Remember, you claimed there was a diagonalization proof that showed Godel was wrong, and then you claimed that such proofs are nonsense, so you admitted that you believe in nonsense proofs as a reason you are "correct". > >> That can be determined only when >> the same state is seen again and then only if the state as seen the first >> time is still fully remembered or reconstructed. >> >> You have not proven that every detail of the state is inculded in >> determination. >> >