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: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:29:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 03:29:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3416946"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7386 Lines: 122 On 6/6/24 10:56 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. > 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 by sidetracking yourself with inappropriate definition to try to acheive your deception, I guess you are admitting defeat, and that you actually don't know anything about what you talk about.