Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v63s2c$28dpi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@i2pn2.org>
 <v62f92$20moo$3@dont-email.me>
 <623debd817e63a256100bb15fed3af8d4fb969fe@i2pn2.org>
 <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me>
 <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@i2pn2.org>
 <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me>
 <0600a243a3bb843ec505712dc7746d41e0ca66dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v63n8u$27f1a$3@dont-email.me> <v63rd7$24jon$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 17:51:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2373426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MbIK2F4hm8vpno8+Hhq73"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:th48WQQjeyAvEqT4qot9fBJdqfQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v63rd7$24jon$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5572

On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
>>>>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are
>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately 
>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>> in the emulation.
>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>>>> Why do they get to lie?
>>> Open question.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
>>>>>>> fully correct emulator.
>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
>>>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and 
>>>>> truth is
>>>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep lying about this?
>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
>>> Which it therefore isn’t.
>>>
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> *This is the repeating state*
> 
> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. 

The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
about *infinitely* repeating state.

If you would quit trying to form rebuttals by deceptively
twisting my words you would have to agree that I am correct.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>


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