Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ornott <news2@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:48:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v3sp88$1infa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 18:48:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eebb440f736cc82db8a314593242fdfb";
	logging-data="1662442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//KmrL1XHNuKQrePhfZ59t"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hmTUrrkOsvm9oW+AK75nAr2s7GA=
In-Reply-To: <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2844

On 5/06/24 04:55, 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.

The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if 
HH(DD,DD) returns 0.