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 --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:47:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v409nm$39ri6$22@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vpsg$39ri6$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v400hl$287qb$3@dont-email.me> <v4016m$3avmq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v401vc$28q9r$2@dont-email.me> <v404mk$3b1i8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v406e4$2965i$7@dont-email.me> <v406pr$39ri5$24@i2pn2.org>
 <v408qi$29nm5$2@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 00:47:50 -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: <v408qi$29nm5$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5435
Lines: 101

On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them 
>>>> possible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>
>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I 
>>>>> know
>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>> hopeless.
>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, 
>>>> they are
>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to 
>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>
> 
> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
> proof that my most important words are correct.
> 
> 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 proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
> 

WHAT PROOF?

You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.


> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
> 
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

and who cares?


> 
> _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.
> 

Thus proving that you have never been working on a Halt Decider, as a 
Halt Decider MUST report on the behavior of the direct execution of the 
machine represented by its input.

All you are doing is proving that you are totally ignorant of the topic 
you are talking about.