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 14:22:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:22:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3468870"; 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: 6471 Lines: 112 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. I said I haven't put the effort to look into the factuality of your claim, which is just a claim since you haven't actually stated a proof,. IF you want to claim a proof, I will ask for a listing of the accepted predicates that your proof uses as its starting point, and the listing of the truth perserving operation. Having never posted such a thing, you have never "Proved" your statement in the formal system of computation theory. Sorry Peter, but you have been debunked.