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 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 10:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41o7p$3cg3t$19@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106661 |
On 6/8/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Which shows that YOU lack the neccessary mandaroty prerequesits to talk
about logic, since that is NOT a proof statement, but a conclusion that
hasn't been actually proven.
>
> 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.
>
Which means you are stipulating that ALL your "deciders" will fail to
decide, and thus your system is just incorrect.
That our you are just admitting to LYING about P / D / DD / DDD being
built by the templates of the Linz / Sipser proofs on the actual decider
that is claimed to be correct, but are just straw men to try to justify
your false claims.
Take you pick, which wrong version are you in?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 12:33 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v43st3$3cipe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106661 |
On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
> 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.
Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 09:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44cpn$3harn$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106764 |
On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>
> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>
typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
{
P(I);
return;
}
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HHH(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD,DDD);
}
In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
statement thus never halt.
When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own return statement, AKA
simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
stop running unless aborted
--
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 | Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 15:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44dg0$3d2ov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106775 |
"At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---"
"I've told you a million times not to exaggerate."
"last communication ...".
If only .... Do you lot [ie few] really have nothing better
to do with your lives than to fire off repetitive accusations every
few minutes to each other? If anyone says something new, perhaps they
could indicate this in the "Subject" line, as a service to humanity.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Lange
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 09:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt |
| Message-ID | <v44dq4$3i5jo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106777 |
On 6/9/2024 9:16 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> If anyone says something new, perhaps they could indicate
> this in the "Subject" line, as a service to humanity.
>
*You must know the C programming language to understand this*
typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
{
P(I);
return;
}
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HHH(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD,DDD);
}
In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
statement thus never halt.
When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own return statement, AKA
simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
stop running unless aborted
*as defined here*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
--
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 | 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt |
| Message-ID | <v44r2b$3egpa$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106779 |
On 6/9/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 9:16 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> If anyone says something new, perhaps they could indicate this in the
>> "Subject" line, as a service to humanity.
>>
>
> *You must know the C programming language to understand this*
Which you have proven you don't have.
>
> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>
> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
> P(I);
> return;
> }
>
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HHH(x, x);
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> HHH(DDD,DDD);
> }
>
> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
> statement thus never halt.
>
> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own return statement, AKA
But it isn't, so you are shown to not know what that would be.
>
> simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
> until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
> stop running unless aborted
And since it never can do that with this
>
> *as defined here*
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
>
Right, since a "Correct Simulation" here means a simulation that exactly
recreates the behavior of the machine descirbed by the input, and that
means that such a simulation can not stop before it reaches a final
state, your argurement doesn't work.
HHH can not "Correctly Determine" the fact, if by HHH doing the second
step mean that the DDD being looked at in the first part (which to be
the Linz/Sipser proof uses that exact HHH) will halt, and thus the
correct simulation of it will halt, so it is impossible to correct
determine that it will not.
You are just showing that your don't understand how to properly use
logic, or are just a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 15:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44gmm$3g17f$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106775 |
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 09:04:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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,
> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>
> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
> P(I); return;
> }
This is not a simulator.
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HHH(x, x); return;
> }
This is not a decider.
> int main()
> {
> HHH(DDD,DDD);
> }
>
> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
> thus never halt.
Thus are not deciders.
> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that DDD correctly
> simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return statement, AKA
> simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until
> HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop
> running unless aborted
And aborts it, making it behave differently - namely, terminating.
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 11:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44k6l$3jnc8$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106783 |
On 6/9/2024 10:11 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 09:04:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> 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,
>
>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>
>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>> {
>> P(I); return;
>> }
> This is not a simulator.
>
>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>> {
>> HHH(x, x); return;
>> }
> This is not a decider.
>
>> int main()
>> {
>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>> }
>>
>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
>> thus never halt.
> Thus are not deciders.
>
>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that DDD correctly
>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return statement, AKA
>> simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until
>> HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop
>> running unless aborted
> And aborts it, making it behave differently - namely, terminating.
>
My latest annotation of this
[Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt]
addresses your false assumption about what halting means.
--
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 | 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44r3q$3egp9$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106775 |
On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>
>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>
>
> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>
> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
> P(I);
> return;
> }
>
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HHH(x, x);
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> HHH(DDD,DDD);
> }
>
> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
> statement thus never halt.
>
> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own return statement, AKA
But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you are
just caught in another of youre lies.
You seem to like to pretend that things aren't what they are but that
they are what they aren't, as a way to try to prove false statements.
>
> simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
> until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
> stop running unless aborted
>
And to ACTUALLY do that, it need to run forever, because i fit
everdecides to abort itsimulation, then when we *RUN* (that is directly
execute it) then the HHH that it will call will also at that exact same
point abort its own simulation and return to DDD.
So, your logic about our hypothetical HHH (not the one you showed is
proven incorrect, and still creates the infinite recursion of your above
machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 19:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45gm5$3tchc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106817 |
On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>
>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>
>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>> {
>> P(I);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>> {
>> HHH(x, x);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>> }
>>
>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>> statement thus never halt.
>>
>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>> own return statement, AKA
>
> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you are
> just caught in another of youre lies.
>
I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
--
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 | 2024-06-09 20:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45hpt$3h641$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106838 |
On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>
>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>> {
>>> P(I);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>> HHH(x, x);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>
V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>> own return statement, AKA
>>
>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you are
>> just caught in another of youre lies.
>>
>
> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different things!
SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought of as
a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave as one.
>
> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>
Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know what
you are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 19:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45ikp$3tpr9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106841 |
On 6/9/2024 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D." may
>>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>
>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>> {
>>>> P(I);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>> HHH(x, x);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>
>
> V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>
>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>> own return statement, AKA
>>>
>>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you are
>>> just caught in another of youre lies.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
>> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
>> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
>
> The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
>
> You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different things!
>
> SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought of as
> a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave as one.
>
>>
>> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
>> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>>
>
> Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know what
> you are saying.
>
I told one exaggeration five years ago.
I said that I had a Turing machine believing that what I
had was equivalent to a Turing machine, not yet knowing
that anyone understood Turing equivalence.
In the mean time you have repeatedly called me a liar on
practically everything that I said. This <is> defamation
in the state where you live and more importantly could
get you eventually sent to actual Hell.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45jl1$3h642$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106843 |
On 6/9/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with "Q.E.D."
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>
>>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>>> {
>>>>> P(I);
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(x, x);
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>
>>
>> V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>>
>>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>> own return statement, AKA
>>>>
>>>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you are
>>>> just caught in another of youre lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
>>> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
>>> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
>>
>> The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
>>
>> You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different
>> things!
>>
>> SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought of
>> as a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave as one.
>>
>>>
>>> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
>>> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>>>
>>
>> Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know
>> what you are saying.
>>
>
> I told one exaggeration five years ago.
> I said that I had a Turing machine believing that what I
> had was equivalent to a Turing machine, not yet knowing
> that anyone understood Turing equivalence.
NO, you have told many more lies than that.
For instance, you said that you system produced a 250 page trace that
you verified that it showed a property of H, when it turns out you
barely glanced at it and didn't even realizd it wasn't the trace you
thought it was.
OBVIOUSLY you lied that you studied that trace.
You LIE that your published traces are "Correct Simulations" per the x86
instructions shown, when they clearly can not be, as a call H would then
be followed by the code in H, which it isn't.
You also claim that it gets back to the beginning of D, when it can't as
that thread of execution will NEVER leave the code of H, until after H
aborts its simulation, and you agree you aren't simulating H that far.
What you are showing instead, it the instructs simulated by that
simulator, which doesn't belong in the simulation of the simulator,
except perhaps as an explanitory comment (not as a piece of the simulation)
>
> In the mean time you have repeatedly called me a liar on
> practically everything that I said. This <is> defamation
> in the state where you live and more importantly could
> get you eventually sent to actual Hell.
Because you have been lying, and I have been calling you out on it.
>
> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>
Then stop LYING.
When someone points out an error in one of your statements, do not just
repeat it without actualy PROVING it to be true. That may mean breaking
to down into something simpler, or showing an actual reference to that.
If you can't actually do that, then you can't claim it as true, no
matter how hard you "believe it to be true" as that is just a reckless
disregard for the truth.
It seems clear that you just don't care about what is actualy true, or
even learning enough so you might be able to know what was true or not.
You have some ideas you want to be able to prove, and will twist logic
to shreads to try to prove it.
That just shows you don't care about truth, only YOU.
THAT will put you into Gehenna, the lake of Fire.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 20:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45kgq$3ue8q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106845 |
On 6/9/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with
>>>>>>> "Q.E.D." may
>>>>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> P(I);
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(x, x);
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>>>
>>>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> own return statement, AKA
>>>>>
>>>>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you
>>>>> are just caught in another of youre lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
>>>> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
>>>> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
>>>
>>> The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
>>>
>>> You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different
>>> things!
>>>
>>> SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought of
>>> as a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave as one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
>>>> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know
>>> what you are saying.
>>>
>>
>> I told one exaggeration five years ago.
>> I said that I had a Turing machine believing that what I
>> had was equivalent to a Turing machine, not yet knowing
>> that anyone understood Turing equivalence.
>
> NO, you have told many more lies than that.
>
> For instance, you said that you system produced a 250 page trace that
> you verified that it showed a property of H, when it turns out you
> barely glanced at it and didn't even realizd it wasn't the trace you
> thought it was.
>
> OBVIOUSLY you lied that you studied that trace.
>
I never even looked that the trace until
after you looked at it. Calling mistakes
lies IS DEFAMATION IN YOUR STATE
> You LIE that your published traces are "Correct Simulations" per the x86
> instructions shown, when they clearly can not be, as a call H would then
> be followed by the code in H, which it isn't.
>
IT AM STOPPING RIGHT HERE
*THAT D IS CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H HAS BEEN PROVED FOR THREE YEARS*
THE COMPLETE PROOF OF THIS IS THAT THE X86 SOURCE-CODE
OF D EXACTLY MATCHES THE PROVIDED TRACES
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
[Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating
partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v45lji$3h641$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106847 |
On 6/9/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with
>>>>>>>> "Q.E.D." may
>>>>>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> P(I);
>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>>>>
>>>>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>> own return statement, AKA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you
>>>>>> are just caught in another of youre lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
>>>>> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
>>>>> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
>>>>
>>>> The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
>>>>
>>>> You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different
>>>> things!
>>>>
>>>> SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought
>>>> of as a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave
>>>> as one.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
>>>>> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know
>>>> what you are saying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I told one exaggeration five years ago.
>>> I said that I had a Turing machine believing that what I
>>> had was equivalent to a Turing machine, not yet knowing
>>> that anyone understood Turing equivalence.
>>
>> NO, you have told many more lies than that.
>>
>> For instance, you said that you system produced a 250 page trace that
>> you verified that it showed a property of H, when it turns out you
>> barely glanced at it and didn't even realizd it wasn't the trace you
>> thought it was.
>>
>> OBVIOUSLY you lied that you studied that trace.
>>
>
> I never even looked that the trace until
> after you looked at it. Calling mistakes
> lies IS DEFAMATION IN YOUR STATE
But saying that you had looked at it and that is shows something that it
doesn/t isn't a "mistake", but a reckless disregard for the truth.
>
>> You LIE that your published traces are "Correct Simulations" per the
>> x86 instructions shown, when they clearly can not be, as a call H
>> would then be followed by the code in H, which it isn't.
>>
>
> IT AM STOPPING RIGHT HERE
> *THAT D IS CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H HAS BEEN PROVED FOR THREE YEARS*
Nope.
>
> THE COMPLETE PROOF OF THIS IS THAT THE X86 SOURCE-CODE
> OF D EXACTLY MATCHES THE PROVIDED TRACES
Not a proof. and it doesn't.
Can't be, by the definition.
Since you claim "for all H" you need to show for ALL H, so unless you
have shown that you are generated and test every possible H, your
statement is just a LIE.
And for the simulation, by YOUR definiton, a call to H must be followed
by the instructions of H or it isn't correct.
They aren't in the material you posted.
In fact, even the 250 page listing had "gaps"
>
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> [Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating
> partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>
THEN STOP LYING.
You made at least two in this post, so you are just showing what you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vrv2$3ao52$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106523 |
Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:02:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly improve my
> words on the basis of reviews.
IME terrible thinkers are also terrible writers.
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever stops running
> without having its simulation aborted by HH.
It doesn't even matter. D halts or doesn't regardless of whether it is
simulated. Even more important: the same goes for H.
> 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.
Are you saying a simulator can simulate whatever it wants?
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v451ue$3opoi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106445 |
On 7/06/24 04:56, olcott wrote: > Then I am no longer willing to talk to you. > It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the > essence of my life's work. How's that last communication working out? Face it, you're incredibly bored without arguing with people on the internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 00:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3rj3n$1cnit$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106374 |
On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >> THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY WHOLE PROOF* THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *I will dumb it down for you some more* Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] _DD() [00001db2] 55 push ebp [00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001db5] 51 push ecx [00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* *He is not a liar* *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3s5gt$36git$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106378 |
On 6/6/24 1:57 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>> >>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>> >>> >>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >> >> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am >> not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >> > > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY WHOLE PROOF* > THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL > YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. > > *I will dumb it down for you some more* > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _DD() > [00001db2] 55 push ebp > [00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001db5] 51 push ecx > [00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > > *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* > *He is not a liar* > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 08:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3sccr$1gra7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106389 |
On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/6/24 1:57 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more* >>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, >>>>>>>>> because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because >>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>>> >>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>>>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>>>> >>>> >>>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT >>> >>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I >>> am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. >>> >> >> *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY WHOLE PROOF* >> THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL >> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am > not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT *I will dumb it down for you some more* Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] _DD() [00001e12] 55 push ebp [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001e15] 51 push ecx [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* *He is not a liar* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web