| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3v84d$39ri5$10@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:14:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v3v84d$39ri5$10@i2pn2.org> References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3ogh9$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> <v3ttbv$1tf1e$1@dont-email.me> <v3tuqu$388ri$2@i2pn2.org> <v3u07g$1tqnd$1@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 15:14:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v3u07g$1tqnd$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9581 Lines: 175 On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 9:56 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. >>>> >>> >>> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that >>> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the >>> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception >>> fake rebuttals. >>> >> >> Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your >> arguement have no real basis of facts to work with. >> > > You lie about this. You say right above that you insist > on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing > your true colors for all the world to see. But they are worthless "facts", as you seem to be admitting since YOU refuse to even try to rebut my arguement about them. Partial Simulation shows NOTHING itself about if the machine simulated will eventually halt. Simulations of other inputs (like DD paired to a different HH) show nothing about the behavior of THIS input. Either publically accept those facts, so we can move on, or show them to be wrong. Because you have shown a propensity to lie about what others say, I refuse to acknoldge statements that I can see a way you can twist them to mean something different. It is YOUR failure to carry through that has blocked your path, and may well be dooming you to an eternity in Gehenna. > > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] WHO SHOULD CARE, since it doesn't prove anything about the problem you ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========