Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:43:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 146 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 04:43:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec"; logging-data="1415295"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pvmavQ9AcrMa+Xra3TFCT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/f7SAL7GaHR6Xkq12B4fE6CKj8Y= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7578 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: >>>>> On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their face and they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pie drips from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Simulated Correctly" to allow the simulation to say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about the behavior of the machine being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you asking for a counter example of? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not >>>>>>>>>>>> halt to >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you have always known that I am correct >>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT >>>>>>>>>> and yet still try to get away with pure bluster. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, >>>>>>>>> possible because you just don't know what you are talking >>>>>>>>> about, or possible, your medication has made your brain too fuzzy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has* >>>>>>>> *different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH* >>>>>>>> *One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition >>>>>>> of computation theory (or the general concept of a correct >>>>>>> simulation) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PERIOD. >>>>>> >>>>>> *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated >>>>>> by HH* >>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> *That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 *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] _DD() [00001db2] 55 push ebp [00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001db5] 51 push ecx [00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* *He is not a liar* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer