Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:21:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 05:21:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="861630"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UlOJuJFJkYWZCOPurXFQK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J8s2kdH6nC9vFnFnHIMzj1u/u00=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3230

On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

In other words you have always known that I am correct
that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT
and yet still try to get away with pure bluster.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer