Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 12:25:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vc9j$39ri6$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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> <v3va1j$39ri5$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vajv$242e9$9@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 16:25:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3vajv$242e9$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6021
Lines: 99

On 6/7/24 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>    stop running unless aborted then
> 
>    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

And for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that accurated 
reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed machine, which 
means one that doesn't just stop before reaching the end.

Thus, your H doesn't do a correct simulation, or correctly predicts what 
ANY correct simulation of the input does, so, can not in the second 
clause use anything from the first, since it wasn't established.

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

Why? Because you are just tring to redefine the meaning of a core term.

Since HH DOESN'T correctly simulate by the meaning you just last 
mentioned for it, your question is just invalid.

And shows that you are just being deceptive.

> 
> _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 anyone claiming your definiition of correct simuliation can not use 
Professors Sipsers comments, as they use a different one,

So, you are admitting to breaking your own rules by LYING about what 
someone said.

You are just admitting that NOTHING you have been talking about applied 
to the Halting Problem, but only to your POOP, and no one cares about 
your POOP.