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 14:22:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vj4t$39ri6$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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> <v3vf0j$39ri6$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vf5b$24orn$5@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 18:22:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3vf5b$24orn$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6471
Lines: 112

On 6/7/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> *I have proven it thousands of times in the last three years*
> 2,000 times would only be an average of less than two proofs
> per day.

No, you haven't PROVEN it, but argued it must be true.

You don't seem to know what a formal proof actually is.

I don't care about your claim, because it is, by defintion, a dead end, 
as far as halting is concerned, as partial simulation do not show 
non-halting behavior by themselves.

> 
> Richard has finally admitted that he never looked at
> any of these proofs thus finally admitting that his
> dishonest dodge CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
> fake rebuttal was always dishonest and deceptive.
> 

That is NOT what I have said, som you just prove yourself to be a LIAR.

I said I haven't put the effort to look into the factuality of your 
claim, which is just a claim since you haven't actually stated a proof,.

IF you want to claim a proof, I will ask for a listing of the accepted 
predicates that your proof uses as its starting point, and the listing 
of the truth perserving operation.

Having never posted such a thing, you have never "Proved" your statement 
in the formal system of computation theory.

Sorry Peter, but you have been debunked.