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.
>>
>