Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 21:43:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me> <v3r6mt$354i9$6@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 04:43:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1415295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pvmavQ9AcrMa+Xra3TFCT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/f7SAL7GaHR6Xkq12B4fE6CKj8Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7578

On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

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

*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