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 20:35:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v40905$39ri5$26@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v401b1$287qb$7@dont-email.me> <v403et$39ri6$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v4058v$2965i$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:35:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4058v$2965i$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4971
Lines: 81

On 6/7/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, 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:
>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
>>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
>>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
>>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable
>>>>>>
>>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only 
>>>>> required to
>>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest
>>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their 
>>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one
>>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they 
>>>>> have
>>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.
>>>  >
>>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same 
>>>> when
>>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My 
>>>> result
>>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!".
>>>>
>>>
>>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
>>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
>>> Some people here have that.
>>
>> You seem confused.
>>
>>
>> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually 
>> simulated.
>>
>> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your 
>> system, like the CALL H instruction.
>>
> 
> It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages.
> https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf
> 
> HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of
> the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed
> in to this making it more difficult to find.

Except that this is the trace of main calling HH which then simulated 
DD, and doesn't seem to show the trace that this HH does itself, except 
maybe weirdly imbedded within that first trace.

I don't think you really know what you are doing.

You said you were going to post the trace that the directly executed HH 
was making as it correctly simulated DD.

This is not that trace.

That trace should start at the first instruction of DD and then go into HH.

> 
>> You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current 
>> definition of correct simulation.
>> -- 
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>