Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 13:53:53 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 136 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 20:53:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039"; logging-data="2300250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aFAvm+J5v7a3yApQVQTPk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1LwYSV6kstpS+szxOq7kW0iGr2I= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7441 On 6/7/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/7/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/7/2024 11:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/24 11:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/24 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a >>>>>>>>>>> way to not-prove the thing you were trying to prove >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No you are just a Liar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then try to show it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your whole >>>>>>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception fake rebuttal has always >>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>> ignored the proof that I am correct shown below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _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 the >>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior >>>>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation >>>>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And your last statement proves why you have the problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>    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. >>>>>> >>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>> >>>>> And for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that >>>>> accurated reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed >>>>> machine, >>>> >>>> I provide conclusive proof otherwise and your "rebuttal" is >>>> that you are unwilling to examine my proof, after three years >>>> of misleading strawman deception fake "rebuttals". >>> >>> No, you don't. >>> >>> It seems >>> >>>> >>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>  > 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. >>>>  > >>>> >>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >>> >>> Why? I have shown that is a useless question for the problem. >>> >> >> *I have proven it thousands of times in the last three years* >> 2,000 times would only be an average of less than two proofs >> per day. > > No, you haven't PROVEN it, but argued it must be true. > > You don't seem to know what a formal proof actually is. > > I don't care about your claim, because it is, by defintion, a dead end, > as far as halting is concerned, as partial simulation do not show > non-halting behavior by themselves. > >> >> Richard has finally admitted that he never looked at >> any of these proofs thus finally admitting that his >> dishonest dodge CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception >> fake rebuttal was always dishonest and deceptive. >> > > That is NOT what I have said, som you just prove yourself to be a LIAR. > *HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID* On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> 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 context of that is that this is essentially the same proof that I have presented for three years. A 2021 version is on pages 4-5 of this paper. *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation The record shows that you never directly addressed the proof that P correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. The record shows that you always deflected away from this with the strawman deception. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer