Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:16:16 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v686k0$36jd2$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> <v65emv$2l5il$1@dont-email.me> <v6651v$2oun1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 09:16:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70c8d6b77d1510d9355906f09ac241dc";
	logging-data="3362210"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hCGu5HedHN2otLQZu2EBY"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2yaSaMEd7fcGdrHqgSM4JG5zmVw=
Bytes: 5299

On 2024-07-04 12:37:19 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/4/2024 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-03 13:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernelization process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the x86 language says the same thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
>>>>>>>>>>> with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
>>>>>>>>>>> called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
>>>>>>>>>>> I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
>>>>>>>>> incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>>>>> proves that it is correct.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the 
>>>>>>>> final end.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> No, it has not. When it sees a repeating state first time there is no way
>> to know that it is a repeating state.

> You are incompetent

I'm not competing nor planning to compete if that is what you mean.
If you mean that I can't compete that is ulikely to be tested.
I have competed and won but that was long ago.

Anyway, as you have no counter argument my comment stands as written.

-- 
Mikko