Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:16:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0600a243a3bb843ec505712dc7746d41e0ca66dc@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:16:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2014902"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3712
Lines: 46

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:

>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
Open question.

>>>> 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.
If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
Which it therefore isn’t.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.