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: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:15:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3og6b$328ec$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ogh9$pi6u$1@dont-email.me> <v3oi5t$328ec$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me> <v3ojg2$328eb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 03:15:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3219916"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3529
Lines: 64

On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that 
>>>>>>> the above
>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face 
>>>>>>> and they
>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
>>>>>>> their face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated 
>>>>>> Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the 
>>>>>> behavior of the machine being simulated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link*
>>>>
>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
>>
>> What are you asking for a counter example of?
>>
> 
> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to
> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot
> possibly prove otherwise.

No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0.

> 
> We can "define" that it does halt and that would be the same as
> "defining" that all puppies are fifteen story office buildings,
> inherently incorrect.
>

Nope, since the DEFINITON of what an input represents to a Halt Decider, 
is the behavior of the actual machine.


YOUR CLAIM, which CHANGES that definition, is to call all puppies 
fiftenn story office buildings.

Can you show anyone with a real reputation on this (so not you) that 
defines the meaning of the input to a halt decider your way?

Until you can do so, you are just admitting that you have been LYING all 
these years, which means that YOU are the one heading for that lake of Fire.

Of course, you always have the option to REPENT and denounce your lies. 
Just remember, once you die that option is lost (as are you).