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: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:14:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3v0qj$22vrk$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 15:14:54 -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: <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8448
Lines: 148

On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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
> 
> No you are just a Liar

Then try to show it.

Of course, you haven't been able to show the actual truth of ANY 
meaningful statement you claim.

If it is a fact that the essence of you life's work is that you can show 
that this is an input that your decider can not possibly correctly 
partially simulate to a final state, then you have done nothing towards 
your goal of refuting the Halting Problem or establishing a way to prove 
truth.

PERIOD.

And, it seems that you realize that you don't know how to actually PROVE 
your statement, as you are desperately seeking people to confirm it is 
true, so you can move on.

> 
>>  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.
>