Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 10:22:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <v3v8ji$242e9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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>
 <v3v84d$39ri5$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:22:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad5aa88e540ea762834522b410d9de6a";
	logging-data="2230729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/A8GD/tV/dGUlQoE+gMYSE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tMDWR9Ff7Ct7pVwk5K2e9ZVDMNw=
In-Reply-To: <v3v84d$39ri5$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9402

On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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", 


Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

_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

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of
the above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========