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 11:13:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <v3vbj7$24orn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3oifv$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>
 <v3vaku$24e72$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 18:13:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039";
	logging-data="2253687"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fBLS9uh/LQ3gsTWKOJBsd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b96BiZ6IMT/dvcD6yVIe6PE2Cr8=
In-Reply-To: <v3vaku$24e72$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10754

On 6/7/2024 10:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 07.jun.2024 om 17:29 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Does that imply that you think that the direct execution does not 
> execute the instructions of the x86 machine language of DD correctly and 
> in correct order?
> If both the simulation and the direct execution process the instructions 
> of the x86 machine language of DD correctly and in correct order, then 
> why should they differ?
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========