Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 20:41:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <v6461g$29pag$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@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>
 <v63s2c$28dpi$1@dont-email.me> <v63sq3$28goi$4@dont-email.me>
 <v63t32$28dpi$5@dont-email.me> <v63tjq$23vu$1@news.muc.de>
 <v63tve$28dpi$9@dont-email.me> <v643lb$29pc5$4@dont-email.me>
 <v643rs$29t4h$2@dont-email.me> <v644ou$29pag$1@dont-email.me>
 <v644s1$29t4h$4@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 20:41:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cedb142f34e03a5852de86ea322d5ac";
	logging-data="2418000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WweyW4UmA2SdqGpVn9V44"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TTkuLqzkz0VrqwW7b/uJdtsW2Uw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v644s1$29t4h$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4803

Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:21 schreef olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your 
>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK you are a liar then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think so.  There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and 
>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>> Fred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *A liar is anyone that denies this*
>>>>
>>>> Another display of lack of correct reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) 
>>>>> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.
>>>>
>>>> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>>>
>>> Liar
>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>
>> Your trace confirms my proof.
>> The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to 
>> reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator.
> 
> Liar

Lack of argumentation, so try an ad hominem attack. Ignored.

> 
>> This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to 
>> hide a lack of argumentation.
>>
>>>
>>>> You are unable to show the error in the proof.
>>>> If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth?
>>>>
>>>
>