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 15:23:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vmna$39ri5$19@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@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>
 <v3vk3j$266aq$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 19:23:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3vk3j$266aq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7440
Lines: 138

On 6/7/24 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> 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.
>  >
> 
> In other words you finally admitted that you have been intentionally
> dodging this same point for three years. The actual way that you dodged
> this point was the deflection of the strawman deception.
> 

So, you don't understand basic English, I guess that shows how little 
you care about truth.

I read what you say, which is just a CLAIM (and not a proof), but will 
not put in my own effort to see if I can confirm or deny your claim, 
because it is meaningless.

I guess that YOU don't care about what is actually true either, but are 
looking for way to deceptively twist the words of others for your own 
pleasure.

Sorry, but you are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking 
about.