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 (we wish)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:17:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vpsg$39ri6$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> <v3vont$a5e$3@news.muc.de>
 <v3vp3j$27d15$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 20:17:20 -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: <v3vp3j$27d15$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3613
Lines: 53

On 6/7/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
>>> actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
>>> verified facts ....
>>
>> You should stop swearing.  "Verified facts" has a meaning, 
> 
> Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
> they dishonestly deflect.

It MIGHT be a fact, but it hasn't been "Verified" as in a formal process 
that certifies a statement to be true, or that it has been actually 
formally proven.

Pointing out that it is MEANINGLESS is not a "dishonest" deflectin.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
Which is just an admittion that you HH isn't even claiming to be a Halt 
Decider, as a Halt Decider *IS* required to report on the behavior of 
the directly executed DD(DD) from the definition of the problem.

So. I guess we can wrap all this up as you are just admitting that 
nothing you have been talking about has actually be based on the actual 
Halting Problem, and you have been just spamming the group with attempts 
to prove your POOP, which disguising it as sort of like the Halting Problem.