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 22:25:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r3hd$1ahl1$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 02:25:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3314249"; 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: <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8366
Lines: 159

On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
> THAT I AM INCORRECT

Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care about 
that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking about 
the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the 
machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, 
and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.

> 
> *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]

But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm that 
it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.

If you want to talk about HH's PARTIAL (but correct as far as it goes) 
simulation not reaching to DD's final state, go ahead, I won't argue 
about that, except to point out that this does NOT prove that the input 
represents non-halting behavior to the halt decider.

It is the difference between not being able to prove halting behavior, 
and being able to prove non-halting behavior, HH just doesn't have the 
data to prove the behavior.

Partial simulations give a 3 state result.
1) If they reach a final state, they prove Halting.
2) If they create enough data that you can form a valid induction to 
prove that this exact input, if given to a UTM, would never halt, we can 
prove non-halting. (Note, that is the input that FULLY describes the 
FULL machine, and thus for DD includes all the code for the HH that was 
deciding it), or
3) IF they can't do either, as is the case for HH, it just just say that 
the input didn't-yet-halt, that it came to a non-decision. Of course, 
Deciders can't leave it that way, which is why we can't actually have 
Halt Deciders that are correct for all inputs.


Now, if you start to use terminology that implies rather that HH's 
partial simulation not reaching a final state, but that DD is actually 
non-halting, I will point out your LIES, as that is what you need to do 
to say that, as you just don't have the proof, and it HAS been pointed 
out to you.

> 
> _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*
>