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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 08:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41lbm$2kanc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106638 |
On 6/8/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>> >> >> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >> >> That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because >> it is inherently true. >> >> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. > > The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right > way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways > right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both > empirical and analitical truth? > Any expression that can be verified as completely true entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words is analytically true. "Puppies are not any type of fifteen story office building." -- 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 | 2024-06-08 09:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41o0k$3cg3t$18@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106664 |
On 6/8/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/8/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>>> >>> >>> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >>> >>> That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because >>> it is inherently true. >>> >>> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. >> >> The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right >> way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways >> right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both >> empirical and analitical truth? >> > > Any expression that can be verified as completely true entirely > on the basis of the meaning of its words is analytically true. > "Puppies are not any type of fifteen story office building." > And which formal system are you claim =ing that in? That is your problem, you don't understand that all the things you are talking about are ideas in FORMAL SYSTEMS, not just generic philosophy of logic, and thus we have a different set of rules about truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106537 |
Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>> >>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>> >> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >> ELSE HP is undecidable >> > When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to > report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest > people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty. > The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one > one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have > simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result simulating this is right, because it is my result!". > The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed H and the > simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P proves that each > instruction of P was simulated correctly and in the correct order this > conclusively proves that P is correctly simulated by both of these > instances of H. Does the called H also match? -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v401b1$287qb$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106550 |
On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>> >>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>> >>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>> >> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to >> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >> people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty. >> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have >> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. > > "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when > simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result > simulating this is right, because it is my result!". > The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. Some people here have that. >> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed H and the >> simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P proves that each >> instruction of P was simulated correctly and in the correct order this >> conclusively proves that P is correctly simulated by both of these >> instances of H. > Does the called H also match? > -- 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 19:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v403et$39ri6$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106567 |
On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>> >>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>> >>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to >>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty. >>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have >>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. > > >> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when >> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result >> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >> > > The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly > be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. > Some people here have that. You seem confused. I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually simulated. The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your system, like the CALL H instruction. You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current definition of correct simulation. > >>> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed H and the >>> simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P proves that each >>> instruction of P was simulated correctly and in the correct order this >>> conclusively proves that P is correctly simulated by both of these >>> instances of H. >> Does the called H also match? >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v403v6$2965i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106572 |
On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>> >>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>> >>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>> required to >>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>> dishonesty. >>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>> have >>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >> > >>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>> when >>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>> result >>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>> >> >> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >> Some people here have that. > > You seem confused. > > > I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually > simulated. > > The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your > system, like the CALL H instruction. > Do you want to see the full 251 pages showing that the call H was simulated? -- 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 19:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v404kd$39ri6$19@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106576 |
On 6/7/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>>> >>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>>> >>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>>> required to >>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>>> dishonesty. >>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>>> have >>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >>> > >>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>>> when >>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>>> result >>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>>> >>> >>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >>> Some people here have that. >> >> You seem confused. >> >> >> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually >> simulated. >> >> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your >> system, like the CALL H instruction. >> > > Do you want to see the full 251 pages showing that the > call H was simulated? > Sure, post it somewhere. Then, make sure you point out what features of that traces proves that the input represents a program that is non-halting. That will be hard to do as you agree that it halts, and it is hard to prove something that you admit is false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v4068f$2965i$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106579 |
On 6/7/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
>>>>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
>>>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
>>>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
>>>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only
>>>>>> required to
>>>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these
>>>>>> dishonest
>>>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their
>>>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that
>>>>>> they have
>>>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.
>>>> >
>>>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the
>>>>> same when
>>>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My
>>>>> result
>>>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
>>>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
>>>> Some people here have that.
>>>
>>> You seem confused.
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually
>>> simulated.
>>>
>>> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your
>>> system, like the CALL H instruction.
>>>
>>
>> Do you want to see the full 251 pages showing that the
>> call H was simulated?
>>
>
> Sure, post it somewhere.
>
> Then, make sure you point out what features of that traces proves that
> the input represents a program that is non-halting.
>
> That will be hard to do as you agree that it halts, and it is hard to
> prove something that you admit is false.
https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf
This includes the full trace of the simulated HH
and DD simulated by this HH mixed in.
Your false religious belief about correct simulations
can only be overcome by carefully examining this:
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 20:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v408os$39ri5$25@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106584 |
On 6/7/24 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
>>>>>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
>>>>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
>>>>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
>>>>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only
>>>>>>> required to
>>>>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these
>>>>>>> dishonest
>>>>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their
>>>>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently
>>>>>>> focused one
>>>>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that
>>>>>>> they have
>>>>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.
>>>>> >
>>>>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the
>>>>>> same when
>>>>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My
>>>>>> result
>>>>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
>>>>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
>>>>> Some people here have that.
>>>>
>>>> You seem confused.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually
>>>> simulated.
>>>>
>>>> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your
>>>> system, like the CALL H instruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you want to see the full 251 pages showing that the
>>> call H was simulated?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, post it somewhere.
>>
>> Then, make sure you point out what features of that traces proves that
>> the input represents a program that is non-halting.
>>
>> That will be hard to do as you agree that it halts, and it is hard to
>> prove something that you admit is false.
>
> https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf
> This includes the full trace of the simulated HH
> and DD simulated by this HH mixed in.
Which seems to be a trace of the execution of HH, not the trace that HH
makes, since it begins at the entry point to main.
So this is NOT the trace you are claiming that HH is using, as this
should not be available to it.
That might explain the extream large number of pages, this is a trace of
the simulator doing the simulation, not the trace that HH is creating to
see what the input DD does.
************************************
Where is the trace that HH makes?
************************************
at best it seems intertwined with the unneeded trace of the execution of
the direct call by main of HH.
Or is your problem that your system doesn't actually have anyting
"directly executed" but your whole programming world is in the fantasy
of the x86 simulator?
> Your false religious belief about correct simulations
> can only be overcome by carefully examining this:
It isn't a "religious" beleive about correct simulation, it is the
definitions of the sytsem.
Maybe to put it in words you might understand.
The "Gods" of the system (the founders of the Field) created it with
certain definitions in place, and those definition ARE the definitions
of the system.
If you try to be a "god" and change the definition, you get banished
from the field and you are just working in an alternate field that is
but a shadow of the original. Only if you can show enough people that
you alternate system is useful, and the being to use the system and
"worship" it, will it have any power.
Right now, it looks like you have been cast out of Computation Theory
for serving false idols (definitions) and will never be able to actual
prove anything about halting.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
And why do I care about that?
>
> _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.
>
So, again, you admit that your HH is not a Halt Decider, as a Halt
decider MUST answer about the direct execution of the machine described
by their inputs (in this case DD(DD) ) so your definition is violating
the requirements of the problem.
No where does the plain statement of the Halting Problem talk about
"simulation" in any way, that only comes as an extension and only when
simulation is defined correctly, which your is not to allow it.
So, you are just admitting that all your work is just about POOP and not
Halting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v4058v$2965i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106572 |
On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>> >>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>> >>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>> required to >>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>> dishonesty. >>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>> have >>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >> > >>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>> when >>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>> result >>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>> >> >> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >> Some people here have that. > > You seem confused. > > > I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually > simulated. > > The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your > system, like the CALL H instruction. > It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages. https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed in to this making it more difficult to find. > You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current > 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 20:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v40905$39ri5$26@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106581 |
On 6/7/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>>> >>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>>> >>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>>> required to >>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>>> dishonesty. >>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>>> have >>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >>> > >>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>>> when >>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>>> result >>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>>> >>> >>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >>> Some people here have that. >> >> You seem confused. >> >> >> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually >> simulated. >> >> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your >> system, like the CALL H instruction. >> > > It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages. > https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf > > HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of > the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed > in to this making it more difficult to find. Except that this is the trace of main calling HH which then simulated DD, and doesn't seem to show the trace that this HH does itself, except maybe weirdly imbedded within that first trace. I don't think you really know what you are doing. You said you were going to post the trace that the directly executed HH was making as it correctly simulated DD. This is not that trace. That trace should start at the first instruction of DD and then go into HH. > >> You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current >> 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 15:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vn11$39ri5$20@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106530 |
On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> _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.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than
>>>> a few
>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>> instructions"
>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>> criterion.
>>>>
>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>> _DD()
>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>
>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>
>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>
> More dishonest deflection.
> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
> executed DD(DD).
>
And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
It is at best, a correct partial simulation of some of the steps of the
machine.
And this is your strawman that you decieved yourself with years ago, as
you though that you could just redefine the problem, something you are
not allowed to do, and just makes most of your references to halting
just lies.
The problem is you have gaslite yourself into beleiving your own lies,
and turned yourself into a pathological liar who has a reckless
disregard for the truth because you are unable to understand what that
actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 14:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vnfo$26d04$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106536 |
On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than
>>>>> a few
>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>> instructions"
>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems
>>>>> that
>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>
>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>
>> More dishonest deflection.
>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>> executed DD(DD).
>>
>
> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>
Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.
I myself would not risk that.
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 16:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vov2$39ri6$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106538 |
On 6/7/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less
>>>>>> than a few
>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>
>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>
>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>
>>
>> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
>> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
> to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
> can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.
SO who is lying here?
You have shown you don't understand that Computaion Theory concept of
"Correct Simulation" as expressed in the concept of the Universal Turing
Machine, which BY DEFINITION, exactly reproduces the behavior of the
machine described.
Since your stipulated definition, by your own admission. doesn't acheive
this, it can't be the right definition of Correct Simulation since it
doesn't match the definition.
And then you try to couch your claims by guessing things you know
nothing about.
>
> I myself would not risk that.
So you say, but seem to have gone far past that line without see it.
It seems you are hoping that God will consider you just mentally
incompetent, but that would be streaching things a lot since you have
been quoted as saying it was ok for you to have kiddie porn since you
were God.
If you were actually that mentally incompetent, I would have expected
that you would have been put into a mental hospital for that.
My guess your only real hope is to come to the realization of how evil
your have become in your lying and decieving, but it does seem that you
have very well seared your conscious so that may be hard for you to get to.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
Why do we care?
What we actually care about is DD(DD) going to halt when run.
>
> _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.
>
Which is just your admission that you have left the halting problem and
are just talking about your POOP, will trying to deceive people that you
are somehow still working on the halting problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 23:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vso9$27qug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106538 |
Le 07/06/2024 à 21:36, olcott a écrit :
> On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less
>>>>>> than a few
>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>
>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>
>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>
>>
>> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
>> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
> to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
> can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.
>
> I myself would not risk that.
>
> 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.
There is NO definition of "correct simulation" above.
There is only a hint that what you mean by "correct" is
matching the obvious definition of "incorrect".
Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send
you to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes
salvation can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior
is.
I myself would not risk that.
If your bigoted fantasies of yours about God were true, you are
definitely risking a lot given how much you lied on this group and
how you dishonestly quoted numerous people.
Pretending to be God when caught with pedophile materials won't help
much also.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vtrs$39ri6$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106553 |
On 6/7/24 5:06 PM, Python wrote: > Pretending to be God when caught with pedophile materials won't help > much also. > Tracing through some of the things he has posted, he wasn't "pretending to be God" as an attempt to dodge the porn changes, but he honestly has published writing clearly showing a thought that he is in some ways just like God. He has claimed to have written "new scriptures"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v400l8$287qb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106553 |
On 6/7/2024 4:06 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 07/06/2024 à 21:36, olcott a écrit :
>> On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less
>>>>>>> than a few
>>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It
>>>>>>> seems that
>>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>>
>>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
>>> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>>>
>>
>> Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
>> to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
>> can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.
>>
>> I myself would not risk that.
>>
>> 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.
>
> There is NO definition of "correct simulation" above.
>
SHOULD IO REPEAT THIS FIFTY TIMES SO THAT YOU NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT
LEAST ONCE?
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.
--
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 | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 00:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v400qt$27qug$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106559 |
Le 08/06/2024 à 00:12, olcott a écrit :
> On 6/7/2024 4:06 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 07/06/2024 à 21:36, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less
>>>>>>>> than a few
>>>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It
>>>>>>>> seems that
>>>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>>>
>>>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the
>>>> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
>>> to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
>>> can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.
>>>
>>> I myself would not risk that.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> There is NO definition of "correct simulation" above.
>>
>
> SHOULD IO REPEAT THIS FIFTY TIMES SO THAT YOU NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT
> LEAST ONCE?
>
> 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.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 09:58 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v40vec$2gqa0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106530 |
On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> _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.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a few
>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N instructions"
>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>>>>
>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>> _DD()
>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>
>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>
>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>
> More dishonest deflection.
> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
> executed DD(DD).
The true point is that you have never shown any proof about simulation
by HH.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 08:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41kvu$2jqdk$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106636 |
On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than
>>>>> a few
>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>> instructions"
>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems
>>>>> that
>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>
>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>
>> More dishonest deflection.
>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>> executed DD(DD).
>
> The true point is that you have never shown any proof about simulation
> by HH.
>
In other words you lack the mandatory prerequisites so the
correct proof only looks like gibberish to you.
I incorporate by reference
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
(c) I provide this complete function
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
}
_DDD()
[00001de2] 55 push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d pop ebp
[00001df6] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.
To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web