Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:47:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <101fbq9$19e5f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>
 <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me>
 <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
 <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me> <101cjjo$hqle$2@dont-email.me>
 <101cmga$imoa$1@dont-email.me> <101cohp$ikgf$4@dont-email.me>
 <101cppa$j97s$1@dont-email.me> <101cqs1$j925$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me> <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me>
 <101ej5j$125mj$1@dont-email.me> <101ekn7$12895$3@dont-email.me>
 <101f82c$173bb$6@dont-email.me> <101f86e$173m3$3@dont-email.me>
 <101fb7p$173bb$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 18:47:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1adda083d038348e190ff3433969ba4";
	logging-data="1357999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kNgJJYYQ7L8P38MfKj49N"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3U62XvkUUvJbWwEDjCNjFuKM8l8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101fb7p$173bb$11@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/31/2025 10:45 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/31/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2025 5:12 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2025 10:46, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-30 18:40:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>> does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. Nobody has seen the input to HHH(DDD) running forever.
>>>>> So the "non-halting" is not a verified fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The unfailingly patient Mike Terry will forgive me if I have 
>>>> remembered him incorrectly, but I seem to recall... wait... I can 
>>>> quote him:
>>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Just as a reminder I'll repeat the final outcome of all this:
>>>>
>>>> -  PO's H does decide NEVER_HALTS for TM H^ running with input <H^>.
>>>> -  PO's H^ running with input <H^> in fact halts, in line with Linz 
>>>> logic (b) above.
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> ...so it halts. End of, one would think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is the same thing as saying that you never have
>>> to eat because you know that after you eat you will
>>> no longer be hungry.
>>>
>>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH before it has
>>> been aborted is different than the behavior of DDD
>>> emulated by HHH1 after HHH has already aborted its DDD.
>>>
>>> These differences have always been there for three years
>>> and everyone here thinks that they can just assume them away.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The emulation performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the 
>> point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:
>>
> 
> *You are a damned liar*
> HHH performs two recursive emulations of DDD.
> HHH performs one non-recursive emulation of DDD.
> 
> 

Not up to the point that HHH aborts it doesn't.

And it is *you* who is the liar by your own criteria:

On 5/16/2025 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Only damned liars would remove this key context.


>> On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>  > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>  >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>  >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
>>  >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
>>  >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
>>  >>>> It does not abort.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Last chance:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
>>  >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
>>  >>
>>  >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
>>  >
>>  > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
>>  > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
>>  >
>>  >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
>>  >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
>>  >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
>>  >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
>>  >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
>>  >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
>>  >
>>  > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
>>  >
>>  > LET THE RECORD SHOW
>>  >
>>  > That Peter Olcott
>>  >
>>  > Has *officially* admitted
>>  >
>>  > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
>>  > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
>>  > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
>>  > on record as admitting.