Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 13:50:41 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <v3s4a1$1fmd8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 12:50:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17d07dadca88ecbb76ce193497e7406b";
	logging-data="1563048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18R77Z6Cw56wnw0XKdvTVh1"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t3YM12tPEgh1iRVBNVAkIE1kCNs=
Bytes: 4409

On 2024-06-06 01:01:41 +0000, olcott said:

> 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 page merely mentions alleged proofs but does not claim to present
any.

-- 
Mikko