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: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:31:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:31:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3261131"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5011
Lines: 92

On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible because 
you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible, your 
medication has made your brain too fuzzy.

The DEFINITION of DD Halting, is, and only is, does DD(DD) Halt when 
run. And it does, when HH(DD,DD) returns 0, which is what you say your 
HH "correcly" does. It it is an agreed upon fact, as verified, that DD, 
even when "correctly simulated" by HH, will still halt, as it is not the 
simulation of HH that determines the answer to the question, but the 
behavior of the actual program DD that does.

Your HH will, by your own definitions (since you define HH to be a 
decider, so it MUST answer, and thus it MUST halt its simulation) only 
do a partial, even if correct as far as it went, simulation of DD and 
then abort and return 0 to whoever calls it, including DD.

If you want to try to redeam yourself, point out what step I did that 
was wrong.

Just repeating your LYING CLAIM that it is wrong, just puts another nail 
in the coffin of your reputation, which has been dead for years.

Part of your problem is that you just don't understand what the words 
you are using means, because you have refused to study them.

Definitions can NOT be wrong for the field that provided them. Other 
definitions may exist in other areas, but you can't use the "wrong" 
definition in a place that has its own technical meaning for that word.

Trying to do so, just makes you an ignorant liar.

This is the case for you trying to redefine what "Correct Simulation" or 
"Halting" means in computation theory, or what "behavior of the input" 
would mean.

Face it, you have just gotten yourself stuck in your world of lies that 
you dug out of ignorance, and then buried your self with them by your 
stubbornness to accept what is defined.