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 11:46:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3va1j$39ri5$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v3v909$242e9$5@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 15:46:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3v909$242e9$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10218
Lines: 185

On 6/7/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your whole
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception fake rebuttal has always simply
> ignored the proof that I am correct shown below:
> 
> 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.
> 

And your last statement proves why you have the problem.

You are talking about deciding Halting, but then insist on a definition 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========