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 13:53:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <v3vl01$266aq$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vj4t$39ri6$6@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 20:53:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039";
	logging-data="2300250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aFAvm+J5v7a3yApQVQTPk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1LwYSV6kstpS+szxOq7kW0iGr2I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vj4t$39ri6$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7441

On 6/7/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

*HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID*
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> 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 context of that is that this is essentially the same proof
that I have presented for three years. A 2021 version is on
pages 4-5 of this paper.

*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation 


The record shows that you never directly addressed the proof
that P correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless
aborted. The record shows that you always deflected away from
this with the strawman deception.

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