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: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 13:52:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v15slg$1qp5$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v0r350$2hb7o$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0t2rj$33d7g$1@dont-email.me> <v0to22$3881i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0vnud$3pgsv$1@dont-email.me> <v107il$3t543$1@dont-email.me>
 <v128nt$erc9$1@dont-email.me> <v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> <v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1549m$2783$1@news.muc.de> <v15fc9$17unh$6@dont-email.me>
 <v15hat$94v$1@news.muc.de> <v15hsc$17unh$8@dont-email.me>
 <v15ki6$2co2$1@news.muc.de> <v15leg$196h5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v15qcq$26fs$1@news.muc.de> <v15rk8$1a8va$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 17:52:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="60197"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v15rk8$1a8va$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3891
Lines: 60

On 5/4/24 1:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2024 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>> I prefer honest dialogues. Whenever the other party diverges from
>>>>>>> this I will call it out. It may be fun to have an insult party
>>>>>>> until this makes one look ridiculously foolish.
>>
>>>>>> You do NOT prefer honest dialogues at all.  You are not prepared,
>>>>>> ever, to admit where you are wrong.  You seem to insist that
>>>>>> everybody else takes your pronouncements at face value.  You do not
>>>>>> appear to try to understand others' points of view, even
>>>>>> (especially?) where they are right.
>>
>>>>>> How is that "honest dialogue"?
>>
>>>> No response to this bit?
>>
>>> When I assert verified facts and the rebuttal is pure rhetoric
>>> with zero supporting reasoning I simply call BULLSHIT!
>>
>> And when you assert falsehood (which is far more frequent) and the reply
>> points out your falsehood, you still call BS.  The fact is, you are not
>> educated enough or clever enough to understand what is fact in the fields
>> of knowledge under discussion.  You don't understand the notion of proof,
>> for example.  You merely have opinions, not backed up by any connection
>> with reality.  The people you are arguing against have studied the
>> matters under debate and understand them well.
>>
> 
> (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.
> 
> When you assert that I am incorrect about the above point
> this <is> defamation especially when you can't understand
> that simulation could only involve H having a C interpreter
> that interprets the source-code for D or H has an x86 emulator
> that emulates the machine-code of D.

Nope, since the error has been PROVEN, and you have not refuted it, YOU 
are the one committing defamation.

> 
> That you don't even know what simulation means proves that
> you don't have any basis for any rebuttal.
> 
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>