Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 23:05:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:05:08 -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: <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8032
Lines: 162

On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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

But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am 
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.

Since partial simulitions, or simulation of a different input, don't 
prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter.

So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer.

> 
> *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]

And I will dumb it down for you.

I DON'T CARE BECAUSE THE CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT.


> 
> _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*
>