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
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:01:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vov2$39ri6$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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>
 <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
 <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me> <v3vn11$39ri5$20@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vnfo$26d04$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 20:01:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vnfo$26d04$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7254
Lines: 144

On 6/7/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less 
>>>>>> than a few
>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N 
>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your 
>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, 
>>>
>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>
>>
>> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the 
>> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>>
> 
> Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
> to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
> can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.

SO who is lying here?

You have shown you don't understand that Computaion Theory concept of 
"Correct Simulation" as expressed in the concept of the Universal Turing 
Machine, which BY DEFINITION, exactly reproduces the behavior of the 
machine described.

Since your stipulated definition, by your own admission. doesn't acheive 
this, it can't be the right definition of Correct Simulation since it 
doesn't match the definition.

And then you try to couch your claims by guessing things you know 
nothing about.


> 
> I myself would not risk that.

So you say, but seem to have gone far past that line without see it.

It seems you are hoping that God will consider you just mentally 
incompetent, but that would be streaching things a lot since you have 
been quoted as saying it was ok for you to have kiddie porn since you 
were God.

If you were actually that mentally incompetent, I would have expected 
that you would have been put into a mental hospital for that.

My guess your only real hope is to come to the realization of how evil 
your have become in your lying and decieving, but it does seem that you 
have very well seared your conscious so that may be hard for you to get to.

> 
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

Why do we care?

What we actually care about is DD(DD) going to halt when run.

> 
> _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.
> 

Which is just your admission that you have left the halting problem and 
are just talking about your POOP, will trying to deceive people that you 
are somehow still working on the halting problem.