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 07:44:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:44:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2007607"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5282
Lines: 93

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.

There is a difference between taking something from a store, and taking 
something but paying for it on the way out.

But, apparently to you those are the same thing,


Now, Emulating something is different than looking at something, perhaps 
doing a bit of emulation, and coming up with a description of what it 
does (like a decider does). The key is a proper description of what the 
thing does would be what that "infinite emulation" of it did, not just 
the parts that the decider saw, unless it specifically limits its claims 
and admits it isn't giving a full description.

For a witness to conclude that a person stole an item from the store 
because he saw him take the item, and then later left, would be 
committing perjury if they neglected to mention that there was a period 
when they didn't observe the person and they could have paid for it.

In the same way, for the decider to say that the input DOES NOT HALT, 
when all the decider actually knows is that it didn't halt during its 
partial emulation of it, is just being a LIAR. (and arguing about a 
DIFFERENT input with a DIFFERENT decider is also just a LIE).