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: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:18:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a6bae8d51cfa2f7f658df926f58023905830505a@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>
 <df39c8964ec0606945669db5d6803fc317986709@i2pn2.org>
 <v62j7b$21hke$1@dont-email.me>
 <0826f6bb09e5b206ae0ab193da1bef1bb3ff9367@i2pn2.org>
 <v63jo5$26loi$8@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 23:18:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057085"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v63jo5$26loi$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3192
Lines: 41

On 7/3/24 9:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>> Better repent then.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?
>>>> Can you show the C code where it aborts?
>>>>
>>> Yes but I won't.
>>
>> Because it proves you wrong!
>>
> 
> I updated my repository yet will not cast my pearls before swine.
> I have totally proven my case three years ago and only liars
> will disagree.
> 
> 

In other words, this is just like you LIE about the DIagonalization 
proof which you ADMITTED you could produce and that such a proof, like 
you said existed, was just nonsense.

Thus, you have shown that you logic is just based on NONSENSE.

You are just a natural ignorant pathological lying idiot.