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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106367 |
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> 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 But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulitions, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. > > *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] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE THE CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _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 22:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106368 |
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation >>>>>>> of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation >>>>>>> stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you >>>>>>> of the behavior of a different machine then simulated. >>>>>> >>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking >>> about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of >>> the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me >>> caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>> >>>> >>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>> >>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm >>> that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is >>> MEANINGLESS. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *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* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- 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 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106369 |
On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation >>>>>>>> of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation >>>>>>>> stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells >>>>>>>> you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from >>>> talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE >>>> behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will >>>> you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>> >>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm >>>> that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is >>>> MEANINGLESS. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. > > *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] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE THE CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _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* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 22:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106370 |
On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation >>>>>>>>> of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation >>>>>>>>> stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells >>>>>>>>> you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from >>>>> talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE >>>>> behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, >>>>> will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual >>>>> rebuttal. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>> >>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm >>>>> that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is >>>>> MEANINGLESS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *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* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- 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 23:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106371 |
On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then >>>>>>>>>> simulated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from >>>>>> talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE >>>>>> behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, >>>>>> will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual >>>>>> rebuttal. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>> >>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm >>>>>> that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is >>>>>> MEANINGLESS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. > > *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] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE THE CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _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* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 23:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106372 |
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then >>>>>>>>>>> simulated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>>>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from >>>>>>> talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE >>>>>>> behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, >>>>>>> will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual >>>>>>> rebuttal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *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* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- 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 | 2024-06-06 00:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106373 |
On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine >>>>>>>>>>>> then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>>>>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from >>>>>>>> talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt >>>>>>>> Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with >>>>>>>> a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. > > *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] > And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > _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* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 23:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106374 |
On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *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* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- 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 | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 12:32 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <859b3744b2c10230c21e23bf8d83e83a4897a5c2.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #106375 |
On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 23:14 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: > > > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then simulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I will dumb it down for you some more* > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > > > > > > > > > > > > > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > > > > > > > > > > > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > > > > > > > > > > > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't > > > > > > > > > > care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line > > > > > > > > > > from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the > > > > > > > > > > OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a > > > > > > > > > > Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down > > > > > > > > > > hard with a factual rebuttal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I will dumb it down for you some more* > > > > > > > > > > > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > > > > > > > > > > > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to > > > > > > > > > > confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn > > > > > > > > > > because it is MEANINGLESS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > > > > > > > > > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > > > > > > > > > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because > > > > > > > > I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > > > > > > > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > > > > > > > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > > > > > > > > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I > > > > > > am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > > > > > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > > > > > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > > > > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I > > > > am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > > > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > > > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > > > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > THAT I AM INCORRECT > > *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* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf You have been solving POO H for 20 years !!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-halting-problem-explained-in-simple-terms The Halting Problem ask for the program H that: If H(D,D)==1, D(D) will return. Else If H(D,D)==0, D(D) will never return. Else HP is undecidable
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106375 |
On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT > UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE > THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. > > *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] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _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* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 08:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106388 |
On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *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() [00001e12] 55 push ebp [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001e15] 51 push ecx [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *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 | 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106391 |
On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the >>>>>>>>>>>> line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, >>>>>>>>>>>> to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input >>>>>>>>>>>> represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and >>>>>>>>>>>> slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > > THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL > YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. If this statement is the "Most Important" part of your proof, that doesn't say much, since you can't show that it actually means anything. > > *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] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _DD() > [00001e12] 55 push ebp > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001e15] 51 push ecx > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > > *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 | 2024-06-06 21:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106440 |
On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the >>>>>>>>>>>>> line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a >>>>>>>>>>>>> damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >> >> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the essence of my life's work. -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 22:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3ttbv$1tf1e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106445 |
On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> >>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. > It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the > essence of my life's work. > My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception fake rebuttals. -- 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 | 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3tuqu$388ri$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106446 |
On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>> >>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. >> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the >> essence of my life's work. >> > > My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that > you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the > point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception > fake rebuttals. > Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your arguement have no real basis of facts to work with. You are just proving you are a total idiot that has wasted his life. But, maybe your life was never worth anything to begin with, since it seems you believed in your lies for most of your life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 22:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3u07g$1tqnd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106448 |
On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the simulation stopped, and that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of a different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>> >>>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. >>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the >>> essence of my life's work. >>> >> >> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that >> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the >> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception >> fake rebuttals. >> > > Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your arguement > have no real basis of facts to work with. > You lie about this. You say right above that you insist on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing your true colors for all the world to see. Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] _DD() [00001e12] 55 push ebp [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001e15] 51 push ecx [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH -- 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 | 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3v84d$39ri5$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106450 |
On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation of a machine indicates what it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do after the simulation stopped, and that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of a different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>>>>> >>>>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>>>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. >>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the >>>> essence of my life's work. >>>> >>> >>> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that >>> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the >>> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception >>> fake rebuttals. >>> >> >> Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your >> arguement have no real basis of facts to work with. >> > > You lie about this. You say right above that you insist > on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing > your true colors for all the world to see. But they are worthless "facts", as you seem to be admitting since YOU refuse to even try to rebut my arguement about them. Partial Simulation shows NOTHING itself about if the machine simulated will eventually halt. Simulations of other inputs (like DD paired to a different HH) show nothing about the behavior of THIS input. Either publically accept those facts, so we can move on, or show them to be wrong. Because you have shown a propensity to lie about what others say, I refuse to acknoldge statements that I can see a way you can twist them to mean something different. It is YOUR failure to carry through that has blocked your path, and may well be dooming you to an eternity in Gehenna. > > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] WHO SHOULD CARE, since it doesn't prove anything about the problem you claimed to be working on? > > _DD() > [00001e12] 55 push ebp > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001e15] 51 push ecx > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 10:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3v8ji$242e9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106486 |
On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation of a machine indicates what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do after the simulation stopped, and that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of a different machine then simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, because I am not willing to put that effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless
>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
>>>>>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
>>>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
>>>>> essence of my life's work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that
>>>> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the
>>>> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
>>>> fake rebuttals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your
>>> arguement have no real basis of facts to work with.
>>>
>>
>> You lie about this. You say right above that you insist
>> on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing
>> your true colors for all the world to see.
>
> But they are worthless "facts",
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of
the above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
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 | 2024-06-07 11:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3v95s$39ri5$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106490 |
On 6/7/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation of a machine indicates what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do after the simulation stopped, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the behavior of a different machine then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, because I am not willing to put that effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your
>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless
>>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
>>>>>>>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
>>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
>>>>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
>>>>>> essence of my life's work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that
>>>>> you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the
>>>>> point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
>>>>> fake rebuttals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your
>>>> arguement have no real basis of facts to work with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You lie about this. You say right above that you insist
>>> on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing
>>> your true colors for all the world to see.
>>
>> But they are worthless "facts",
>
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
Why?
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of
> the above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Which isn't the definition needed to bridge between direct execution and
simulation.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
No, anyone claiming that the above definition is applicable to a halt
decider, which BY DEFINITION must report on the actual behavior of the
directly executec machine represented by the input is just a LIAR.
You just blew up your arguement by showing your lie.
All your last two decades has just been about your POOP, and not about
HALTING, as you changed the definitions.
No one cares about your POOP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106445 |
On 6/6/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> damn because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your >>>>>>>>>> worthless claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* >>> >>> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. > It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the > essence of my life's work. > If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a way to not-prove the thing you were trying to prove by sidetracking yourself with inappropriate definition to try to acheive your deception, I guess you are admitting defeat, and that you actually don't know anything about what you talk about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web