Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:32:11 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:32:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10009 Lines: 183 On 6/7/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation of a machine indicates what it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do after the simulation stopped, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the behavior of a different machine then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, because I am not willing to put that effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into your worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>>>>>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. >>>>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the >>>>>> essence of my life's work. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that >>>>> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the >>>>> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception >>>>> fake rebuttals. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your >>>> arguement have no real basis of facts to work with. >>>> >>> >>> You lie about this. You say right above that you insist >>> on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing >>> your true colors for all the world to see. >> >> But they are worthless "facts", > > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. Why? > > _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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========