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 12:27:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vcct$39ri6$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vaku$24e72$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3vbj7$24orn$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 16:27:09 -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: <v3vbj7$24orn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11059
Lines: 198

On 6/7/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========