Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 20:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:28 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:55 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 23:15 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 07:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 07:30 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:00 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 22:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 21:43 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:44 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 00:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 12:32 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 21:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 08:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:29 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0500
Re: Last communication with Richard Rich Yard Daemon <news3@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 +0200
Re: Last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:12 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 12:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-07 17:57 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:13 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:00 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 17:50 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:02 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:24 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:41 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 02:57 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 21:22 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:01 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:34 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 10:34 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:32 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:00 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:18 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 03:43 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 12:18 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:20 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 14:41 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:16 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 15:38 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:19 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:25 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:36 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:59 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 11:09 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:44 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:05 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 19:57 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 20:16 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:03 -0500
Re: olcott is a moron immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-08 00:14 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:17 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 18:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 22:22 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:43 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:37 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 23:21 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:32 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:26 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:42 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 23:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:31 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:39 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:24 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:20 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:35 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-07 23:06 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 17:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-08 00:15 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:58 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 12:33 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-09 15:16 +0100
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:21 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 15:11 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:17 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:36 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 00:57 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:08 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:27 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ornott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 18:48 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 11:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact prescott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 20:03 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:02 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500 |
| Subject | At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact |
| Message-ID | <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> |
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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3og6b$328ec$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106259 |
On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf > > At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above > link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. > > It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they > persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from > their face. > > The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the machine being simulated. You have been told this repeatedly, so your refusal to listen just proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar that reckless disregards the truth and beleives his own lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 20:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3ogh9$pi6u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106274 |
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 have been told this repeatedly, so your refusal to listen just > proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar that reckless > disregards the truth and beleives his own lies. If you have reasoning to prove otherwise provide it otherwise everyone will know that you have no basis for any rebuttal. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3oi5t$328ec$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106275 |
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. You are just proving that you don't understand how logic works, apparently because logic is just above your ability > >> You have been told this repeatedly, so your refusal to listen just >> proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar that reckless >> disregards the truth and beleives his own lies. > > If you have reasoning to prove otherwise provide it otherwise > everyone will know that you have no basis for any rebuttal. > The fact that in Computation Theory, the only concept of simulation that shows behavior is by a defintion that requires that the simulation match that behavior. it is sort of a Tautology. A simulation can only correctly show the behavior, if the results of the simulation correct show the actual behavior of the thing simulated. So, since DD(DD) DOES HALT if HH(DD,DD) returns 0, because it claims it "correct simulation" indicated it was non-halting, means that BY THE DEFINITON OF CORRECT, its simulation can not be "correct". If you want to claim that something that is objectively wrong can be correct, please show it. Your logic just brings your system into massive contradiction, and thus it is worthless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 21:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106284 |
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* The behavior that a machine description specifies to a UTM IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS FINITE STRING YOU ARE SIMPLY VERY CONFUSED -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 22:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3ojg2$328eb$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106285 |
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? I said definition are always correct and you can't prove one wrong. There is no counter-example to that. If you want a counter example to you claim of correct simulation, DD(DD) is the counter example. You claim that you can show a "Correct Simulation" of it proves non-halting behavior, when the actual behavior of that machine is Halting, so it CAN'T be non-halting. > > The behavior that a machine description specifies to a UTM > IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS FINITE STRING > YOU ARE SIMPLY VERY CONFUSED > > Right, and a UTM simulates the input to EXACTLY repoduce the behavior of the machine it describes. So, HH(DD,DD), to be a Halt Decider must answer to if UTM(DD,DD) WHERE THAT DD IS STILL PAIRED TO HH, will halt, which means if DD(DD) will halt. Since DD(DD) will halt, and thus UTM(DD,DD) will halt, if HH(DD,DD) returns 0, that answer can not be correct. PERIOD. BY DEFINITION, one you even just agreed to. Perhaps your problem is you forget the defintion of a UTM, it isn't "just a simulator" but it is a machine that EXACTLY REPODUCES THE BEHAVIOR of the machine described by its input.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 21:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3ok3p$q2fh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106286 |
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. We can "define" that it does halt and that would be the same as "defining" that all puppies are fifteen story office buildings, inherently incorrect. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106287 |
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. > > We can "define" that it does halt and that would be the same as > "defining" that all puppies are fifteen story office buildings, > inherently incorrect. > Nope, since the DEFINITON of what an input represents to a Halt Decider, is the behavior of the actual machine. YOUR CLAIM, which CHANGES that definition, is to call all puppies fiftenn story office buildings. Can you show anyone with a real reputation on this (so not you) that defines the meaning of the input to a halt decider your way? Until you can do so, you are just admitting that you have been LYING all these years, which means that YOU are the one heading for that lake of Fire. Of course, you always have the option to REPENT and denounce your lies. Just remember, once you die that option is lost (as are you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 22:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106288 |
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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 07:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106289 |
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. The DEFINITION of DD Halting, is, and only is, does DD(DD) Halt when run. And it does, when HH(DD,DD) returns 0, which is what you say your HH "correcly" does. It it is an agreed upon fact, as verified, that DD, even when "correctly simulated" by HH, will still halt, as it is not the simulation of HH that determines the answer to the question, but the behavior of the actual program DD that does. Your HH will, by your own definitions (since you define HH to be a decider, so it MUST answer, and thus it MUST halt its simulation) only do a partial, even if correct as far as it went, simulation of DD and then abort and return 0 to whoever calls it, including DD. If you want to try to redeam yourself, point out what step I did that was wrong. Just repeating your LYING CLAIM that it is wrong, just puts another nail in the coffin of your reputation, which has been dead for years. Part of your problem is that you just don't understand what the words you are using means, because you have refused to study them. Definitions can NOT be wrong for the field that provided them. Other definitions may exist in other areas, but you can't use the "wrong" definition in a place that has its own technical meaning for that word. Trying to do so, just makes you an ignorant liar. This is the case for you trying to redefine what "Correct Simulation" or "Halting" means in computation theory, or what "behavior of the input" would mean. Face it, you have just gotten yourself stuck in your world of lies that you dug out of ignorance, and then buried your self with them by your stubbornness to accept what is defined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 07:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3plp1$v133$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106304 |
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* That you continue to try to get away changing the subject to the direct execution of DD(DD) that has provably different behavior as your rebuttal is the strawman deception and might possibly get you sent to Hell. I hope not. I hope that either (a) you are confused or (b) you repent or (c) The bible is wrong about all liars: Revelations 21:8 ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. To the best of my knowledge I am not taking any chances on this. There are sometimes when I complement someone and after the fact I carefully study my words and find that I inadvertently exaggerated a little bit. I never use flattery knowing full well that it is deception. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v3q94a$34b9u$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106306 |
Am Wed, 05 Jun 2024 07:30:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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: >>>>>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that >>>>>>>>>>> the above link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH. >>>>>> 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. pls no ableism > *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has* > *different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH* In that case, H is not simulating it correctly. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 19:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106306 |
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. Since the DEFINITION of Correctly simulating something is that the simulation matchs the behavior of the thing simulated, your claim is just a lie, and one that isn't an "honest mistake" since you keep repeating it after it has been pointed out. The problem is that your are trying to define as a "Correct Simulation" something that is just a PARTIAL simulation, and that PARTIAL simulation does correctly show PART of the behavior of DD, but that isn't enough to conclude non-halting. I will note, that you have been unable to find anyone to quote about your concept of simulation being valid (since you surely would have posed if you found one) since you haven't done so. This means you SHOULD know that you are barking up the wrong tree. > > That you continue to try to get away changing the subject to the > direct execution of DD(DD) that has provably different behavior as > your rebuttal is the strawman deception and might possibly get you > sent to Hell. I hope not. I hope that either (a) you are confused > or (b) you repent or (c) The bible is wrong about all liars: But you haven't proven "DIFFERENT" behavior, as your PARTIAL simulation shows what it does show, that DD will call HH, and it will simulate for awhile. The fact that HH can't simulate its input to the end is NOT a proof that it doesn't end. The problem is that it is INVALID LOGIC (and just a bald face lie) to talk about the behavior of any other HH simulating a DIFFERENT DD as having anything to do the behavior of this DD, or that your HHs are some how simulation just one "template". (since Templates don't HAVE this sort of behavior to decide on, or even simulate). All you have done is proven that the criteria you want to try to use, just doesn't work and doesn't actually provide a valid basis for HH to decide. > > Revelations 21:8 > ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with > fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Which seems to be YOUR destination. I have no concerns, as my statements are rooted in truth. > > To the best of my knowledge I am not taking any chances on this. There > are sometimes when I complement someone and after the fact I carefully > study my words and find that I inadvertently exaggerated a little bit. > I never use flattery knowing full well that it is deception. > Well, it seems your only hope is that God judges you as a mentally incompetent person, since the "facts" you try to quote are just wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 20:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106349 |
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* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106358 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 20:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106359 |
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 <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. *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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 21:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106361 |
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 <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. > > *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. Given that HH(DD,DD) halts and returns 0 (or it isn't a decider) we have that: DD(DD) Halts. The ACTUAL Correct Simulation of DD(DD) will Halt. The Simulation that HH does, might be correct as far as it goes, but doing only a fixed finite number of steps of that particular DD, it doesn't show that it can't halt in some larger number of steps (like both of the statements above do show). So, you are stuck trying to solve a problem with a tool that can't give you the answer, and then blaming the problem for you using the wrong tool. Halting has a very precise definition, and any answer to the question about halting must answer that precise definition. Any claim that an answer that differs from that definition is just a LIE. You try to push your lie by trying to deceptively change the definition of what a "Correct Simulation" is, and that just show that you are nothing but a pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth, as anyone with a shred of morals would see the error and correct themselves. Since it seems that your native toungue is to lie, you just don't understand that, so you are doomed to be eternally wrong. My guess is you are going to be sentenced to spending an eternity going around and around in your proof, always thinking you are getting closer, but having that hope dashed again and again and again for eternity. > > _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* >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 20:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106362 |
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 <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. >> >> *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 *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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 22:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106363 |
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 <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. >>> >>> *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. If you want to talk about HH's PARTIAL (but correct as far as it goes) simulation not reaching to DD's final state, go ahead, I won't argue about that, except to point out that this does NOT prove that the input represents non-halting behavior to the halt decider. It is the difference between not being able to prove halting behavior, and being able to prove non-halting behavior, HH just doesn't have the data to prove the behavior. Partial simulations give a 3 state result. 1) If they reach a final state, they prove Halting. 2) If they create enough data that you can form a valid induction to prove that this exact input, if given to a UTM, would never halt, we can prove non-halting. (Note, that is the input that FULLY describes the FULL machine, and thus for DD includes all the code for the HH that was deciding it), or 3) IF they can't do either, as is the case for HH, it just just say that the input didn't-yet-halt, that it came to a non-decision. Of course, Deciders can't leave it that way, which is why we can't actually have Halt Deciders that are correct for all inputs. Now, if you start to use terminology that implies rather that HH's partial simulation not reaching a final state, but that DD is actually non-halting, I will point out your LIES, as that is what you need to do to say that, as you just don't have the proof, and it HAS been pointed out to you. > > _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* >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 21:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106365 |
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 <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. >>>> >>>> *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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web