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: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:06:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3deee8ab55dcb896cef6189c9667cbbeef20e6ce@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> <v686k0$36jd2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 15:06:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2247595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v686k0$36jd2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5762
Lines: 106

On 7/5/24 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-04 12:37:19 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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
> 
> I'm not competing nor planning to compete if that is what you mean.
> If you mean that I can't compete that is ulikely to be tested.
> I have competed and won but that was long ago.
> 
> Anyway, as you have no counter argument my comment stands as written.
> 

I guess that just went above your head, as you read the wrong word.


Incompetent:
not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully

You ARE incompetent at logic, and Computation Theory (and a lot of other 
things too).

Non-Halting Turing Machines exist that NEVER repeat their state.