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: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 00:17:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0v44j$2qov4$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0uvj5$3kdu6$1@dont-email.me> <v0v2i3$2qov3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0v390$3l29l$3@dont-email.me> <v0v3g9$2qov3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v0v3tf$3l29l$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 04:17:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2974692"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0v3tf$3l29l$8@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3974
Lines: 74

On 5/2/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you do not address it immediately right where I
>>> post it then I ignore everything after that.
>>>
>>> *We are still on this point*
>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You don't get to set the rules.
>>
>> Your claim has been refuted.
>>
>> You have not answered the refuation.
>>
> 
> You know that your "refutation" was pure nonsense.

Then you could point out an error in the logic

> 
> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
> aborts its simulation or not.
> 
> If you don't directly address those words right here then I
> will ignore everything after them.



You don't get to set the rules.


You are really just admitting that you have nothing to base your claims on.

I have posted my reasoning, and you have failed to address it, so your 
claim is refuted.

Repeating it is just knowing lying and admitting you have no further 
basis to make the claim than you think it must be true, and are too 
stupid to understand the reply.

> 
> (a)
> It is a verified fact that
> It is a verified fact that
> It is a verified fact that
> It is a verified fact that
> 
> *D(D) simulated by H*
> *D(D) simulated by H*
> *D(D) simulated by H*
> *D(D) simulated by H*
> 
> cannot possibly reach past line 03 of D(D)
> cannot possibly reach past line 03 of D(D)
> cannot possibly reach past line 03 of D(D)
> cannot possibly reach past line 03 of D(D)
> 
> whether H aborts its simulation or not.
> whether H aborts its simulation or not.
> whether H aborts its simulation or not.
> whether H aborts its simulation or not.
> 
> maybe the repetition will help you to focus

Just proves that you have no logical answer to my statement.

And is an admission that your whole logic is just one big LIE.