Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:37:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v585aa$5ski$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v57837$onl3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v5792v$3t97b$1@dont-email.me> <v579gn$onl3$17@i2pn2.org>
 <v579rg$3t97b$3@dont-email.me> <v57b01$onl3$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v57ohp$5d7$2@dont-email.me> <v57plv$onl4$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d";
	logging-data="193170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ud2QfZAYGCg10/Qx3kAHG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9lWoLr1wOpfnExFqU9G1RJwrICM=
In-Reply-To: <v57plv$onl4$14@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4106

On 6/22/2024 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2024 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/22/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 2:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD
>>>>>> correctly simulated by H0 according to the definition of the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> FROM WHERE?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is just YOUR LIE!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you are trying to get away with disbelieving in the
>>>> semantics of the x86 language and you can't even spell "from"
>>>>
>>>> That you have the audacity to call me a liar over this
>>>> might condemn you to Hell (I sincerely hope not).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I call it a lie, because it IS one.
>>>
>>> You claim a definition of the "Correct Answer" that has NO source but 
>>> your own ignorant mind. That makes it a LIE, as there is a DIFFERENT 
>>> definition that you refuse to use.
>>>
>>> You claim you can show "behavior" by the definition of the x86 
>>> assembly language that is not there.
>>>
>>
>> Liar
>>
> 
> You losing it Peter.
> 
> you need to show something, or you are just admitting you have lost.
> 

Not at all. I have written it up much better now.
Because I had to write it up clearly enough that
people trying to get away with lying about it look
like ridiculous fools it finally has a change to
be accepted.

> 
> You HAVE lost, since you have nothing to back your lies, and that has 
> been reveiled, but not even trying is just giving up.
> 
> The ACTUAL CORRECT emulation of the proper input (which includes the 
> code of the decide which is needed) shows that DDD will Halt since H0 
> will decide on it and return, and thus DDD will halt.
> 

That is not the question.
The question is can the call to H0(DDD) made by DDD
correctly simulated by H0 return?

> H0's emulation might not get there, but that isn't the question, and 
> H1's emulation, which will be identical to H0 up to the point H0 stops 
> (if H0 did a correct emulation per your rules) so there is no ground to 
> say the behavior was different.
> 
> H0 is just WRONG about halting.

When you try and get away with conflating an aborted simulation
with terminating normally gullible fools might think you are right.

There are several people here that are not gullible fools.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer