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 22:08:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3tq39$388rj$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3sp88$1infa$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3spni$1j9km$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 02:08:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3416947"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3spni$1j9km$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3237
Lines: 59

On 6/6/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/6/2024 11:48 AM, ornott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> From: ornott <news2@immibis.com>
> established Liar.
> 

Nope, Olcott is the established Liar.

That IS the behavior of the code, why do you say it isn't?

How can DD NOT halt if the HH(DD,DD) that it calls returns 0?