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 13:11:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vf0j$39ri6$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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>
 <v3vdge$24orn$2@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 17:11:47 -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: <v3vdge$24orn$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7496
Lines: 134

On 6/7/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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".

No, you don't.

It seems

> 
> 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.

Why? I have shown that is a useless question for the problem.

> 
> _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.

Nope, To say that it doesn't need to report on the behavior of the 
directly executed DD(DD) is a violation of the definition of a Halt Decider.

Now, your claim may be correct about POOP deciders, that need to decide 
on the behavior of the correct simulation of the input by the decider 
using that definition, but you can't even prove that this would be a 
correct question to ask a decider.

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

Which is exactly what YOU are doing and projecting.

You use the strawman, claiming Halting is "closes enough" to your POOP 
question of the behavior of the correct simulation of the decider.

You ignore that DD(DD) has been shown to Halt whenever HH(DD,DD) returns 
0, as your own reckless disregard for the truth.

I suspect that I could mount a reasonable case for YOUR defamation of 
me, but I suspect you don't have anything worth going through the 
process to collect, since a sick idiot like you likely doesn't have any 
resources free.


Remember, YOU are the one claiming the exraordinary claim that 
established facts are wrong, so YOU Have the burder of proof, which you 
have shown you can not actually provide. Just an endless series of 
baseless claims that have no actual foundation in any established theory.

But then, you never studied the theory, so you don't understand the 
problems. Just like when Bugs walked off the clift and didn't fall, 
because "He didn't study law"