Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 21:27:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <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>
 <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 01:27:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3314250"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7197
Lines: 140

On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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]


I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.

Given that HH(DD,DD) halts and returns 0 (or it isn't a decider) we have 
that:

DD(DD) Halts.

The ACTUAL Correct Simulation of DD(DD) will Halt.

The Simulation that HH does, might be correct as far as it goes, but 
doing only a fixed finite number of steps of that particular DD, it 
doesn't show that it can't halt in some larger number of steps (like 
both of the statements above do show).

So, you are stuck trying to solve a problem with a tool that can't give 
you the answer, and then blaming the problem for you using the wrong tool.

Halting has a very precise definition, and any answer to the question 
about halting must answer that precise definition.

Any claim that an answer that differs from that definition is just a LIE.

You try to push your lie by trying to deceptively change the definition 
of what a "Correct Simulation" is, and that just show that you are 
nothing but a pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth, 
as anyone with a shred of morals would see the error and correct themselves.

Since it seems that your native toungue is to lie, you just don't 
understand that, so you are doomed to be eternally wrong.

My guess is you are going to be sentenced to spending an eternity going 
around and around in your proof, always thinking you are getting closer, 
but having that hope dashed again and again and again for eternity.

> 
> _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*
>