Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:26:48 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v3s2t7$1fdm0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 12:26:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c619e3f261cb3a9ea37272cbfe9e5a5a";
	logging-data="1554112"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1ns52hs6J2oGysTHjfn6R"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DoLNmJeDu1aKjaIXJd2Mg1zYRcQ=
Bytes: 4180

On 2024-06-05 12:30:25 +0000, olcott said:

> 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*

It is self-evident from the meaning of the words and therefore
easily proven that a correct complete simulation of DD(DD)
reproduses the behaviour of DD(DD). Likewise it is self-evident
and therefore easily proven that a correct partial simulation
of DD(DD) reproduces a part of the the behaviour of DD(DD).

Of course, simulation of DD without an argument may do somenting
different.

> *One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*

Don't lie about that. Lying is not useful if easily exposed.

-- 
Mikko