Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335051 > 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 100 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 09:54 +0300
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 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 12:30 +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 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 03:42 +0800
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 (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 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 --- 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 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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 13:50 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 13:26 +0300
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 09:50 +0300
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 23:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40i49$3bc44$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335283 |
On 6/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work? >>>> >>>> What INCORRECTLY? >>>> >>>> Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are >>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved >>>> yourself on it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that >>>>> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much >>>>> more to my behavior than that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You also twist the words of people. >>>> >>>> You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show >>>> you don't actually understand. >>>> >>> >>> I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words >>> that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light. >> >> Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you >> don't actually understand the meaning. >> > > Mostly it is people that dogmatically assert that my notion of > DD correctly simulated by HH is not consistent with what they > memorized. Because sometimes DOGMA is what is the rules. Your concept of HH being able to answer based on its own definition of correct simulation just make is NOT A HALT DECIDER, because its mapping function is not that of Halting. Your error is that you speak out of rote words you picked up while not learning anything, and thus don't actually make sense. > > They either lack sufficient technical skill to understand my > correction of their incorrect assumption or want to call me > wrong without bothering to look at my proof to the contrary. Nope, YOU don't have sufficient technical skill to understand the system you are trying to talk about. You are not the "God" of compuation theory, and thus can not change the rules of it. Halting has a defintion, and you can not change it and still be in Computation Theory, If you try, you are cast out of the land, and nothing you do will have any ability to affect that actual system. All you have proven is that you are not working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory, and likely aren't even in the bounds of Computation Theory at all. This is why you get the rejections, you have gotten yourself kicked out of the garden for your bad behavior. If you start with the admission of what you are wanting to try to look at being different, then perhaps you can come up with something that might be of interest, but of course, any proof about olcott-halting wouldn't affect any of the standard proofs of things you don't like that are based on the canonical definitions of Halting, so we still have incompleteness, and the inability to have a universal Truth Predicate. > >>> >>> That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things >>> are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect. >> >> But you haven't actually PROVEN anything. >> >> You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true. >> >>> >>> To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single >>> detail of my whole view of these things and find an error. >> >> No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you >> need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable >> to do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is. >> >> When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true, >> building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system. >> >> To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that >> proof that isn't valie. >> >>> >>> That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it >>> does not count as rebuttal. >> >> Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under. >> >> Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't >> proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation. >> >>> >>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> > >>> >>> Maybe now that we have worked together to make >>> my words more precise we can finally get closure. >> >> So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth >> looking at. >> >> Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are >> trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path >> before you go down it. >> >> Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your >> claim, that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make >> it reasonable to look at. >> >> Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going >> to work. >> >>> >>> It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis >>> that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough, >>> less than 24 months is POD24. >>> >> >> So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof. >> > > What I really need it to get the liars to repent. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v4058v$2965i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335255 |
On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>> >>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>> >>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>> required to >>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>> dishonesty. >>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>> have >>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >> > >>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>> when >>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>> result >>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>> >> >> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >> Some people here have that. > > You seem confused. > > > I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually > simulated. > > The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your > system, like the CALL H instruction. > It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages. https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed in to this making it more difficult to find. > You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current > definition of correct simulation. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v40905$39ri5$26@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335268 |
On 6/7/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>>> directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above >>>>>>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, >>>>>>> >>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: >>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. >>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. >>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable >>>>>> >>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only >>>>> required to >>>>> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest >>>>> people merely use that as another deflection point for their >>>>> dishonesty. >>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one >>>>> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they >>>>> have >>>>> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years. >>> > >>>> "only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same >>>> when >>>> simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My >>>> result >>>> simulating this is right, because it is my result!". >>>> >>> >>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >>> Some people here have that. >> >> You seem confused. >> >> >> I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually >> simulated. >> >> The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your >> system, like the CALL H instruction. >> > > It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages. > https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf > > HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of > the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed > in to this making it more difficult to find. Except that this is the trace of main calling HH which then simulated DD, and doesn't seem to show the trace that this HH does itself, except maybe weirdly imbedded within that first trace. I don't think you really know what you are doing. You said you were going to post the trace that the directly executed HH was making as it correctly simulated DD. This is not that trace. That trace should start at the first instruction of DD and then go into HH. > >> You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current >> definition of correct simulation. >> -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 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 | #335185 |
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 | #335143 |
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 | #335146 |
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 | #335150 |
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]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3tq35$388rj$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335152 |
On 6/6/24 9:08 AM, olcott wrote: > 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 But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. If this statement is the "Most Important" part of your proof, that doesn't say much, since you can't show that it actually means anything. > > *I will dumb it down for you some more* > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > > _DD() > [00001e12] 55 push ebp > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001e15] 51 push ecx > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > > *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* > *He is not a liar* >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3sdfv$1gra7$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335150 |
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. > One thing that your above statement does prove is that your every prior attempt of CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal on this point really was the strawman deception, thus deception. *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* *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 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3tq37$388rj$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335154 |
On 6/6/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. >> > > One thing that your above statement does prove is that your every > prior attempt of CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal on this point > really was the strawman deception, thus deception. > > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > *THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF* > > THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL > YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim. Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter. So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer. I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim. If this statement is the "Most Important" part of your proof, that doesn't say much, since you can't show that it actually means anything. > > *I will dumb it down for you some more* > Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH > such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] > And I will dumb it down for you. I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT. > _DD() > [00001e12] 55 push ebp > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001e15] 51 push ecx > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > > *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention* > *He is not a liar* > > *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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 13:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3s4a1$1fmd8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335127 |
On 2024-06-06 01:01:41 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above >>>>>>>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they >>>>>>>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from >>>>>>>>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" >>>>>>>>>>>> to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>> machine being simulated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are you asking for a counter example of? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to >>>>>>> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >>>>>>> possibly prove otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you have always known that I am correct >>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT >>>>> and yet still try to get away with pure bluster. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible >>>> because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible, >>>> your medication has made your brain too fuzzy. >>>> >>> >>> *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has* >>> *different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH* >>> *One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed* >> >> Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of >> computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation) >> >> PERIOD. > > *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf That page merely mentions alleged proofs but does not claim to present any. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 13:26 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3s2t7$1fdm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335090 |
On 2024-06-05 12:30:25 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above >>>>>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they >>>>>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from >>>>>>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" >>>>>>>>>> to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>> machine being simulated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>>>> >>>>>> What are you asking for a counter example of? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to >>>>> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >>>>> possibly prove otherwise. >>>> >>>> No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you have always known that I am correct >>> that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT >>> and yet still try to get away with pure bluster. >>> >> >> You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible >> because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible, >> your medication has made your brain too fuzzy. >> > > *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has* > *different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH* It is self-evident from the meaning of the words and therefore easily proven that a correct complete simulation of DD(DD) reproduses the behaviour of DD(DD). Likewise it is self-evident and therefore easily proven that a correct partial simulation of DD(DD) reproduces a part of the the behaviour of DD(DD). Of course, simulation of DD without an argument may do somenting different. > *One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed* Don't lie about that. Lying is not useful if easily exposed. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ornott <news2@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 18:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3sp88$1infa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335076 |
On 5/06/24 04:55, olcott wrote: > On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that >>>>>>> the above >>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face >>>>>>> and they >>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from >>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated >>>>>> Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the >>>>>> behavior of the machine being simulated. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>> >>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>> >>> >>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >> >> What are you asking for a counter example of? >> > > The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to > simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot > possibly prove otherwise. The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if HH(DD,DD) returns 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3spni$1j9km$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335166 |
On 6/6/2024 11:48 AM, ornott wrote: > On 5/06/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that >>>>>>>> the above >>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face >>>>>>>> and they >>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated >>>>>>> Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the >>>>>>> behavior of the machine being simulated. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>>> >>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot* >>> >>> What are you asking for a counter example of? >>> >> >> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to >> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >> possibly prove otherwise. > > The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if > HH(DD,DD) returns 0. > From: ornott <news2@immibis.com> established 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 | prescott <news2@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 20:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3stl0$1infb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335167 |
On 6/06/24 18:56, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 11:48 AM, ornott wrote: >> On 5/06/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >>> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to >>> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >>> possibly prove otherwise. >> >> The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if >> HH(DD,DD) returns 0. >> > > From: ornott <news2@immibis.com> > established Liar. > You are unable to refute this established fact: > On 5/06/24 04:19, olcott wrote: >> It is fully operational C code it can run out of stack space >> even if you give it googolplex of terabytes. > > Sounds like it's infinite recursion. Infinite recursion doesn't halt. > Deciders always halt, so a program that's infinitely recursive isn't a > decider. because it is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3tq39$388rj$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335167 |
On 6/6/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/6/2024 11:48 AM, ornott wrote: >> On 5/06/24 04:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that >>>>>>>>> the above >>>>>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face >>>>>>>>> and they >>>>>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> their face. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated >>>>>>>> Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the >>>>>>>> behavior of the machine being simulated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link* >>>>>> >>>>>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you >>>>> cannot* >>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you >>>>> cannot* >>>>> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you >>>>> cannot* >>>> >>>> What are you asking for a counter example of? >>>> >>> >>> The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to >>> simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot >>> possibly prove otherwise. >> >> The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if >> HH(DD,DD) returns 0. >> > > From: ornott <news2@immibis.com> > established Liar. > Nope, Olcott is the established Liar. That IS the behavior of the code, why do you say it isn't? How can DD NOT halt if the HH(DD,DD) that it calls returns 0?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 09:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3p1qt$s3hc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335051 |
On 2024-06-04 21:53:55 +0000, olcott said: > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf > > At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above > link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. More obvious facts are denied by more numerous people so 100 should be nothing to worry about. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3p62t$sg73$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335051 |
Op 04.jun.2024 om 23:53 schreef olcott: > https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf > > At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above > link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH. > > It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they > persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from > their face. > > By changing definitions you can prove many things. If create a halting decider that looks whether the description of its input has an odd, or a an even length, then, of course people will tell me that the result does not match direct execution. So, I change the definition of halting to that what my decider returns, because that is the input used by my decider. Then, by definition my decider is always correct. You do the same, by changing the meaning of halting to that what your decider returns. Of course, by that definition, your deciders is trivially correct, but useless. It seems that your eyes are so full of Boston cream, that you see nothing, not even the cream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3pqlt$1003g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335084 |
On 6/5/2024 3:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 04.jun.2024 om 23:53 schreef olcott:
>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>>
>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>>
>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
>> their face.
>>
>>
>
> By changing definitions you can prove many things.
>
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,4) cannot correctly return the sum of 5 + 6.
H(D,D) cannot possibly return the halt status of D(D) because
D calls H in recursive simulation thus forcing the behavior of
D correctly simulated by H to be different than the behavior of
the directly executed D(D).
Requiring H(D,D) to return the halt status of D(D) is exactly
the same as requiring sum(3,4) to return the sum of 5 + 6.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
No one has ever shown otherwise all that anyone has ever provided
is dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
--
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 | 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3qbcj$12e2c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335095 |
Op 05.jun.2024 om 15:54 schreef olcott:
> On 6/5/2024 3:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 04.jun.2024 om 23:53 schreef olcott:
>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>>>
>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>>>
>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
>>> their face.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> By changing definitions you can prove many things.
>>
>
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) cannot correctly return the sum of 5 + 6.
>
> H(D,D) cannot possibly return the halt status of D(D) because
> D calls H in recursive simulation thus forcing the behavior of
> D correctly simulated by H to be different than the behavior of
> the directly executed D(D).
>
> Requiring H(D,D) to return the halt status of D(D) is exactly
> the same as requiring sum(3,4) to return the sum of 5 + 6.
>
> *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>
> No one has ever shown otherwise all that anyone has ever provided
> is dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>
Since you deleted most of what I said, I assume that don't know how to
refute it. Apparently you are unable to change your dogma's, even when
confronted with facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web