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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be
 willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:18:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f44e15610643caa86e6032f1456d9501bbd1d51@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:18:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057085"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5038
Lines: 90

On 7/3/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

But it doesn't SEE an actual repeating state.

And HHH stopping its emulation does not stop the actual behavior defined 
by the input, which is what a COMPLETE emulation of it (and exactly this 
"it", so still calling HHH) would do.

Every state that is "sort of" repeating, has data that isn't the same.

We KNOW that DDD correct emulation isn't infinitely repeating if HHH 
ever decides to abort its emualation and return, so HHH is just stuck 
not knowing what to do.