Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 11:46:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v3vdge$24orn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vc9j$39ri6$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 18:46:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039";
	logging-data="2253687"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+pFXM02ctTBGuEwEp6zoo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5quF+OVg3D5SGT1ehQYtww08p64=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vc9j$39ri6$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6062

On 6/7/2024 11:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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, 

I provide conclusive proof otherwise and your "rebuttal" is
that you are unwilling to examine my proof, after three years
of misleading strawman deception fake "rebuttals".

On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > 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.
 >

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.

After three years of "rebuttal" of my proof using the dishonest
dodge of the strawman deception shows a reckless disregard for
the truth of defamation cases.

   a reckless lack of attention to the truth that misleads
   or deceives another
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer