| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 20:18:35 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> References: <v3o2dj$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$14@i2pn2.org> <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me> <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org> <v3plp1$v133$2@dont-email.me> <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org> <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me> <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 03:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec"; logging-data="1267342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18x6+MeIbqS7s3ffAXbs7DA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:rRwD8yh1iNPG3KHQ66VHAypRSD0= In-Reply-To: <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5715 On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has* >>>> *different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH* >>>> *One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed* >>> >>> Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of >>> computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation) >>> >>> PERIOD. >> >> *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* >> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >> >> *That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar* >> > > Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a > machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and that > the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a > different machine then simulated. *I will dumb it down for you some more* Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] _DD() [00001db2] 55 push ebp [00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001db5] 51 push ecx [00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* *He is not a liar* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer