| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3tq37$388rj$15@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:08:39 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v3tq37$388rj$15@i2pn2.org> References: <v3o2dj$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> <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> <v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 02:08:39 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3416947"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 8219 Lines: 152 On 6/6/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: > 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 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 simulations, 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 am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. If this statement is the "Most Important" part of your proof, that doesn't say much, since you can't show that it actually means anything. > > *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 YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > _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 > >