Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:07:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3og6b$328ec$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ogh9$pi6u$1@dont-email.me> <v3oi5t$328ec$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me> <v3ojg2$328eb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me> <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me> <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3plp1$v133$2@dont-email.me> <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 01:07:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3314249"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5507
Lines: 103

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 <is> 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.

It just proves that you are incapable of looking at REALITY.

Yes, HH creates a correct PARTIAL simulation of DD that shows that this 
DD does not reach a halting state until after the point that HH stops 
its simulation.

The simulation of all the other machines mean NOTHING about the 
simulation of this machine.

You are just showing that you don't understand such fundamental facts 
like a machine will do exact what that machine has been programmed to 
do, and nothing else (even if that isn't what you wanted it to do).

You are just proving you are a stupid, ignorant, pathological liar that 
has a reckless disregard for the truth, and is unable to learn from your 
mistakes, because you will not look at the actual facts.

You are worse then the Election Deniers.