Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #108110 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-01 20:25 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-07-02 09:54 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 162 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:25 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 21:51 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:09 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:35 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:52 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 22:31 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 07:30 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 07:26 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 18:44 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:23 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 07:20 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-03 10:27 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:11 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 09:09 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 10:22 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 07:22 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 20:42 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 21:17 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 14:46 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 18:44 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 18:03 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:07 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 20:18 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:25 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 20:32 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:51 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 22:35 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 22:07 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 22:43 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 07:44 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:27 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:16 +0000
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 09:29 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 17:40 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 18:04 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:09 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-07-03 16:18 +0000
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:24 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:01 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:04 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:20 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:21 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:41 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:23 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 09:21 +0300
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 19:58 +0200
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:20 +0000
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:48 -0500
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 13:36 +0000
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-05 10:07 +0300
Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 09:15 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:37 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-05 10:16 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-05 11:06 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-06 09:20 +0300
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 04:09 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 10:33 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:22 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 17:44 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 10:53 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 18:05 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:11 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:04 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:14 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Richard seems to be willfully ignorant "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 20:08 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 04:05 +0000
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 23:14 -0500
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 07:44 -0400
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:29 -0500
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:36 +0000
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 09:43 -0500
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:41 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-03 10:42 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 09:29 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:39 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-05 10:20 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 07:08 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-05 11:11 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 03:50 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 22:55 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 10:42 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 17:52 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 10:55 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:21 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-03 19:56 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:38 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:50 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 13:38 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 08:43 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 15:07 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 10:56 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:07 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:22 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:32 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:39 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:57 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 12:33 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 13:47 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-05 10:32 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 07:15 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:05 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:16 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:27 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 11:09 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:53 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 08:32 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 15:03 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 10:58 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:24 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:29 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 16:34 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 11:45 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 12:50 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 09:19 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Yes to both for Peter Olcott Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400
Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 19:40 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 21:17 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 20:26 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 21:47 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 21:05 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? For Olcott: YES to both. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 22:34 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 21:41 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-03 23:05 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 22:21 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-04 09:52 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:43 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-04 21:32 +0200
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar ??? Maybe... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-04 09:42 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:41 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-04 11:24 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-05 10:27 +0300
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-05 07:10 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-05 11:15 -0400
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-04 10:13 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 07:45 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-02 11:32 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 07:23 -0500
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-02 14:48 +0000
Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 09:54 -0500
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 11:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v63t32$28dpi$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108240 |
On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it >>>>>>>>>>> continues to >>>>>>>>>>> the final end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are >>>>>>>>>> false? >>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to >>>>>>>>> infiniately loop >>>>>>>>> in the emulation. >>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>>> Open question. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't >>>>>>>>> itself a >>>>>>>>> fully correct emulator. >>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an >>>>>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and >>>>>>> truth is >>>>>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <- >>>>> Which it therefore isn’t. >>>>> >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> *This is the repeating state* >>> >>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >> >> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >> about *infinitely* repeating state. > > Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation > is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. OK you are a liar then. -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 16:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v63tjq$23vu$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #108242 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: [ .... ] >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation >> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. > OK you are a liar then. I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not Fred. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 11:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v63tve$28dpi$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108246 |
On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > >>>>>> *This is the repeating state* > >>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. > >>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. > >>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation >>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. > >> OK you are a liar then. > > I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not > Fred. > *A liar is anyone that denies this* _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >> -- >> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 20:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v643lb$29pc5$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108248 |
Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >> >>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >> >>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >> >>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation >>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >> >>> OK you are a liar then. >> >> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not >> Fred. >> > > *A liar is anyone that denies this* Another display of lack of correct reasoning. > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to > repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. You are unable to show the error in the proof. If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 13:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v643rs$29t4h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108253 |
On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>> >>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>> >>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>> >>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >>>>> simulation >>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>> >>>> OK you are a liar then. >>> >>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's >>> not >>> Fred. >>> >> >> *A liar is anyone that denies this* > > Another display of lack of correct reasoning. > >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >> [00002183] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >> repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. > > I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. Liar https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > You are unable to show the error in the proof. > If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth? > -- 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v644ou$29pag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108255 |
Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> >>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>> >>>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>>> >>>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >>>>>> simulation >>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>>> >>>>> OK you are a liar then. >>>> >>>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and >>>> it's not >>>> Fred. >>>> >>> >>> *A liar is anyone that denies this* >> >> Another display of lack of correct reasoning. >> >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>> [00002183] c3 ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>> repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >> >> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. > > Liar > https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf Your trace confirms my proof. The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator. This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to hide a lack of argumentation. > >> You are unable to show the error in the proof. >> If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth? >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 13:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v644s1$29t4h$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108257 |
On 7/3/2024 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >> On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>>> >>>>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>> >>>>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>> >>>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>>>> >>>>>> OK you are a liar then. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and >>>>> it's not >>>>> Fred. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *A liar is anyone that denies this* >>> >>> Another display of lack of correct reasoning. >>> >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>> repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >>> >>> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. >> >> Liar >> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > > Your trace confirms my proof. > The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to > reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator. Liar > This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to hide > a lack of argumentation. > >> >>> You are unable to show the error in the proof. >>> If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth? >>> >> -- 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 20:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v6461g$29pag$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108259 |
Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:21 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>>>>> >>>>>>> OK you are a liar then. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and >>>>>> it's not >>>>>> Fred. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *A liar is anyone that denies this* >>>> >>>> Another display of lack of correct reasoning. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) >>>>> to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >>>> >>>> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. >>> >>> Liar >>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf >> >> Your trace confirms my proof. >> The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to >> reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator. > > Liar Lack of argumentation, so try an ad hominem attack. Ignored. > >> This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to >> hide a lack of argumentation. >> >>> >>>> You are unable to show the error in the proof. >>>> If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth? >>>> >>> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 13:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v644um$29t4h$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108257 |
On 7/3/2024 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >> On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>>> >>>>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>> >>>>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>> >>>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>>>> >>>>>> OK you are a liar then. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and >>>>> it's not >>>>> Fred. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *A liar is anyone that denies this* >>> >>> Another display of lack of correct reasoning. >>> >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>> repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >>> >>> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. >> >> Liar >> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > > Your trace confirms my proof. > The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to > reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator. I was too hasty when I called you a Liar on this. > This is further evidence that the ad hominem attack is only used to hide > a lack of argumentation. > >> >>> You are unable to show the error in the proof. >>> If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth? >>> >> -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 09:21 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v65f1e$2l7e0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108260 |
On 2024-07-03 18:23:18 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/3/2024 1:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>>>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>>>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation >>>>>>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >>>>>> >>>>>>> OK you are a liar then. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not >>>>>> Fred. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *A liar is anyone that denies this* >>>> >>>> Another display of lack of correct reasoning. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>>> repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. >>>> >>>> I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. >>> >>> Liar >>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf >> >> Your trace confirms my proof. >> The full trace shows that the simulation of the simulator is unable to >> reach the simulation of the 'ret' of the simulated simulator. > > I was too hasty when I called you a Liar on this. More generally, you are too hasty to call anyone a liar on anyting. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <284a7a7e2cf9178e44809f57aa0cd1e74607583f@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108248 |
On 7/3/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >>>>>>> *This is the repeating state* >> >>>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >> >>>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>>>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >> >>>> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation >>>> is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. >> >>> OK you are a liar then. >> >> I don't think so. There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not >> Fred. >> > > *A liar is anyone that denies this* > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to > repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted. Except that is a LIE, as the simulation by that HHH never gets back to the beginning of DDD, but stays inside of HHH. At best, HHH can decide that HHH(DDD) is non-halting, and then prove itself wrong by halting. > >>> -- >>> 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 19:58 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ? |
| Message-ID | <v643fr$29pc5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108242 |
Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:09 schreef olcott: > On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it >>>>>>>>>>>> continues to >>>>>>>>>>>> the final end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are >>>>>>>>>>> false? >>>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to >>>>>>>>>> infiniately loop >>>>>>>>>> in the emulation. >>>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>>>> Open question. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't >>>>>>>>>> itself a >>>>>>>>>> fully correct emulator. >>>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation >>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and >>>>>>>> truth is >>>>>>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >>>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a >>>>>> repetition. <- >>>>>> Which it therefore isn’t. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>> >>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>> >>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >> >> Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your >> simulation is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here. > > OK you are a liar then. > Irrelevant ad hominem attack ignored. It shows that your argumentation failed. I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself. You are unable to show an error in the proof. -- Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature. <http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 10:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <f7c1d91bf0108f101bbccac8882c1b5a71ebdb39@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108234 |
Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately >>>>>>>> loop in the emulation. >>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>> Open question. >>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself >>>>>>>> a fully correct emulator. >>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is >>>>>>> an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and >>>>>> truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>> >>>>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. >>>> <- Which it therefore isn’t. >>>> >>> *This is the repeating state* >> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. > > The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author > of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about > *infinitely* repeating state. If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state and does halt. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 07:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <v665m8$2oun1$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108313 |
On 7/4/2024 5:20 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately
>>>>>>>>> loop in the emulation.
>>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>>>>>> Why do they get to lie?
>>>>> Open question.
>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself
>>>>>>>>> a fully correct emulator.
>>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is
>>>>>>>> an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and
>>>>>>> truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this?
>>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
>>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition.
>>>>> <- Which it therefore isn’t.
>>>>>
>>>> *This is the repeating state*
>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state.
>>
>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author
>> of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about
>> *infinitely* repeating state.
> If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state
> and does halt.
>
It took me two years to come up with these words please make
sure that you totally understand each one of them.
<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 words 10/13/2022>
--
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 | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 13:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <72b2c1719d052a591e7c132d0ce95912e634a796@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108325 |
Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:48:08 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/4/2024 5:20 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to >>>>>>>>>> infiniately loop in the emulation. >>>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>>>> Open question. Why can a termination analyser emulate an infinite loop as a finite one? >>>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with >>>>>>>>>> partial emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just >>>>>>>>>> isn't itself a fully correct emulator. >>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a >>>>>> flag or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a >>>>>> repetition. <- Which it therefore isn’t. How does HHH track it? >>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling >>> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing >>> about *infinitely* repeating state. >> If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state >> and does halt. „State” does not mean calling the same function again. It means the same stack, registers and memory, or for TMs, same tape and internal status. If that reappears, there can be no deviation, because those completely determine program flow. H does not call D, it only simulates part of it, until before the recursive call to H aborts. > It took me two years to come up with these words please make sure that > you totally understand each one of them. I do. It is not very difficult. The point is that H doesn’t simulate D correctly: D halts, because it only calls H, which halts by definition. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 11:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <1afcd9d43f1524d6e5d967febfb06b6ef5fb6091@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108325 |
On 7/4/24 8:48 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 5:20 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately >>>>>>>>>> loop in the emulation. >>>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>>>> Open question. >> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself >>>>>>>>>> a fully correct emulator. >>>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is >>>>>>>>> an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and >>>>>>>> truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >>>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. >>>>>> <- Which it therefore isn’t. >>>>>> >>>>> *This is the repeating state* >>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >>> >>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author >>> of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about >>> *infinitely* repeating state. >> If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state >> and does halt. >> > > It took me two years to come up with these words please make > sure that you totally understand each one of them. > > <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 words 10/13/2022> > And you perfectly trapped yourself as it is well known that to Professor Sipser, like any sane person working in the field, the definition of a "Correct Simulation" means (unless psecifically ammended, which you forgot to do) a simulation that FULLY reproduces the behavior that the machine the input represents does when it is run. Since D(D) Halts when run (since your H is defined to abort its simulation and return non-halting, in your mind correctly) then any "Correct Simulation" of the input will show this too, so it is IMPOSSIBLE that THIS H's simulation be correct and show it to never stop running, as that is by definition not a correct simulation, and it is also IMPOSSIBLE for H to correctly determine that ANY "Correct Simulation" of this input would never stop running as it does stop running. So, you laid the perfect trap for yourself giving him a softball to hit out of the park, giving you a true answer that you just don't understand, because you are so convinced that you are allowed to change the fundamental meaning of words. In simpler words, you logic is based on your claiming the right to LIE by redefining the words that others use. Perhaps a lot of this is just due to your utter ignorance and stupidity because you never bothered to learn the terminology of the field, but tried to deduce it with your "zeroth order principles" (they are not based first principles, as that requires you to first learn those first principles) from which you have made up your (largely incorrect) definitions of the terms. But it isn't just ignorance, as ignorance will try to learn when corrected, but you just stick your heels in the shit you produced and ignore the truth, thus, making you into a pathological liar, who with a reckless disregard for the truth, tries to spread your false ideas as if they had some foundation other than the POOP that fills your mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-05 10:07 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <v6863k$36giv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108313 |
On 2024-07-04 10:20:55 +0000, joes said: > Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately >>>>>>>>> loop in the emulation. >>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>>>>> Why do they get to lie? >>>>> Open question. > >>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself >>>>>>>>> a fully correct emulator. >>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is >>>>>>>> an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and >>>>>>> truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. >>>>> <- Which it therefore isn’t. >>>>> >>>> *This is the repeating state* >>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. >> >> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author >> of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about >> *infinitely* repeating state. > If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state > and does halt. That "halt" does not follow. A Turing machine can execute forever without repeating its state. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <b383987cb90eaf4cf1b169b190166b2fba6b5ad6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108226 |
On 7/3/24 10:29 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not >>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to >>>>>>>> the final end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are >>>>>>> false? >>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop >>>>>> in the emulation. >>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit. >>>> Why do they get to lie? >> Open question. >> >>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial >>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a >>>>>> fully correct emulator. >>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an >>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that? >>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is >>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens. >>>> >>> Why do you keep lying about this? >>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough. >> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag >> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <- >> Which it therefore isn’t. >> > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > *This is the repeating state* > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc > [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) And this is an incorrect emulation (especially by youyr definiton of being by the semantics of the x86 language that doesn't recognize a call to HHH as a call to an emulator (of any type) but just the call to a function that has x86 instructions. And the state isn't repeating, as it is at a different level of simulation. And if you remove your requirement that HHH be an x86 based emulator, but is just a generic functional emulation, then since HHH is a CONDITIONAL emulator (as proven by its decision to abort at the bottom) then when it trying to show the emulation that it is emulating, to be correct, it needs to not that conditionality at every instruction,l and that shows that the emulation is NOT provable to be infinite, as there are excape points in the emulation where the machine it is emulating might choose to stop, so it could at a later stage, > New slave_stack at:14e2ec > [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > So, you are just proven to be a ignorant liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-03 19:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <0f44e15610643caa86e6032f1456d9501bbd1d51@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108218 |
On 7/3/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> kernelization process
>>>>>>>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the x86 language says the same thing,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
>>>>>>>>> with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
>>>>>>>>> called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
>>>>>>>>> I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
>>>>>>> incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>>> proves that it is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately
>>>> loop in the emulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>
>> Why do they get to lie?
>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
>>>> fully correct emulator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>
>>
>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth
>> is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>
>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>
>
> Why do you keep lying about this?
> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>
>
But it doesn't SEE an actual repeating state.
And HHH stopping its emulation does not stop the actual behavior defined
by the input, which is what a COMPLETE emulation of it (and exactly this
"it", so still calling HHH) would do.
Every state that is "sort of" repeating, has data that isn't the same.
We KNOW that DDD correct emulation isn't infinitely repeating if HHH
ever decides to abort its emualation and return, so HHH is just stuck
not knowing what to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-04 09:15 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant |
| Message-ID | <v65emv$2l5il$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108218 |
On 2024-07-03 13:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> kernelization process
>>>>>>>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the x86 language says the same thing,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the
>>>>>>>>>> Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
>>>>>>>>> with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
>>>>>>>>> called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
>>>>>>>>> I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
>>>>>>> incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>>> proves that it is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the
>>>>>> final end.
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop
>>>> in the emulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>
>> Why do they get to lie?
>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
>>>> fully correct emulator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>
>>
>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is
>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>
>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>
>
> Why do you keep lying about this?
> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
No, it has not. When it sees a repeating state first time there is no way
to know that it is a repeating state. That can be determined only when
the same state is seen again and then only if the state as seen the first
time is still fully remembered or reconstructed.
You have not proven that every detail of the state is inculded in
determination.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web