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 ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:29:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3tstr$1td1o$2@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 03:29:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3416946"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7386
Lines: 122

On 6/6/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 PROOF*
>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>> *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.
>>
> 
> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
> essence of my life's work.
> 

If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a way to 
not-prove the thing you were trying to prove by sidetracking yourself 
with inappropriate definition to try to acheive your deception, I guess 
you are admitting defeat, and that you actually don't know anything 
about what you talk about.