| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:27:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 127 Message-ID: <v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me> References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org> <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org> <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org> <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org> <v3rj3n$1cnit$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5gt$36git$3@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 15:27:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec"; logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6sndq0L3u/4CqRPj5NE4D" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:BgoZYctIcm4qroNOY+B5ZaGScUs= In-Reply-To: <v3s5gt$36git$3@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7221 On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 1:57 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY WHOLE PROOF* >> THUS 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. > One thing that your above statement does prove is that your every prior attempt of CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal on this point really was the strawman deception, thus deception. *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* THUS 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() [00001e12] 55 push ebp [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001e15] 51 push ecx [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* *He is not a liar* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer