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 --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:01:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v40ahk$39ri5$29@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <v408aa$29nm5$1@dont-email.me> <v409jf$39ri6$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v409st$29u1i$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 01:01:40 -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: <v409st$29u1i$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5853
Lines: 112

On 6/7/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:23 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. 
>>>
>>> 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 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>  >> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>>>  >> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>>>  >
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
> 
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
> 
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
> 
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.

I said you were wrong about proving that DD was not Halting.

I have said nothing about the truth of you claim using your 
non-canonical definniton of correct simulation.

To say otherwise is just a LIE.

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

Why should I care?

> 
> _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.
> 

So you are just admitting that you definition of correct simulation 
doesn't give you the information needed to determine halting correctly, 
since that IS based on the direct exectution of the machine being asked 
about via its representation.

SO, you are just proving yourself to be wrong.