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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3var0$1o9em$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335231 |
On 7/06/24 17:52, olcott wrote: > The proof that you have lied about this is your above admission > that you have always ignored the following proof that I am correct > by using the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal. > > <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> I debunked this a few messages ago. You ignored it because you are an idiot who ignores everything that proves he's wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 12:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vcfk$39ri6$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335231 |
On 6/7/24 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
>>>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
>>>>> essence of my life's work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a way to
>>>> not-prove the thing you were trying to prove
>>>
>>> No you are just a Liar
>>
>> Then try to show it.
>>
>
> The proof that you have lied about this is your above admission
> that you have always ignored the following proof that I am correct
> by using the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
>
> <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 for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that accurated
reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed machine, which
means one that doesn't just stop before reaching the end.
Thus, your H doesn't do a correct simulation, or correctly predicts what
ANY correct simulation of the input does, so, can not in the second
clause use anything from the first, since it wasn't established.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
Why? Because you are just tring to redefine the meaning of a core term.
Since HH DOESN'T correctly simulate by the meaning you just last
mentioned for it, your question is just invalid.
And shows that you are just being deceptive.
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
And anyone claiming your definition of correct simulation can not use
Professors Sipser's comments, as they use a different one,
So, you are admitting to breaking your own rules by LYING about what
someone said.
You are just admitting that NOTHING you have been talking about applied
to the Halting Problem, but only to your POOP, and no one cares about
your POOP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #335231 |
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a few
days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N instructions"
simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
That now seems to have changed.
[ .... ]
> --
> 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 | 2024-06-07 14:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335246 |
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:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>
>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a
>>>>> few
>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>> instructions"
>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>
>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>
>> More dishonest deflection.
>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>> executed DD(DD).
>>
>
> The 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
>
> You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
>
> Surrender to my GUR, son.
>
If people are going to be dishonest about simple things
such as the actual behavior of actual x86 code where
they consistently deny verified facts
then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
of judgment call.
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.
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.
>
Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
simulated by both of these instances of H.
It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
assumption.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 03:42 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <45bce7b14b5111be2f315cfb38106361d3ab56d9.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #335255 |
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 14:31 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 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:
> > > > > > [ Followup-To: set ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ .... ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > _DD()
> > > > > > > [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> > > > > > > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > > > > > > [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> > > > > > > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > > > > > > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> > > > > > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > > > > > > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> > > > > > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > > > > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > > > > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
> > > > > > instructions"
> > > > > > simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
> > > > > > the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That now seems to have changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
> > > > > improve my words on the basis of reviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> > > > > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
> > > > >
> > > > > _DD()
> > > > > [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> > > > > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > > > > [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> > > > > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > > > > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> > > > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > > > > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> > > > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > > > >
> > > > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> > > > > of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> > > > > of the above definition of correct simulation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
> > >
> > > More dishonest deflection.
> > > The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
> > > deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
> > > simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
> > > executed DD(DD).
> > >
> >
> > The 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
> >
> > You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
> >
> > Surrender to my GUR, son.
> >
>
> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things
> such as the actual behavior of actual x86 code where
> they consistently deny verified facts
>
> then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
> difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
> of judgment call.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
> has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
> simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
>
> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
> H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
> proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
> in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
> simulated by both of these instances of H.
>
> It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
> sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
> assumption.
>
>
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
I recalled now. You knew what the Halting Problem is. But soon, you started to insist
POOH is correct by fabricating ...(lots of things)...
Wake up, your trick won't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 15:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3voas$39ri5$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335255 |
On 6/7/24 3:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a
>>>>>> few
>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your
>>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>
>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>
>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>
>>
>> The 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
>>
>> You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
>>
>> Surrender to my GUR, son.
>>
>
> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things
> such as the actual behavior of actual x86 code where
> they consistently deny verified facts
But what have people disagreed about on the actual code.
DO you deny that the actual x86 code when run will halt since your
HH(DD,DD) will return 0 to let it be a decider?
>
> then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
> difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
> of judgment call.
But nothing should require a "judgement call".
>
> 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.
But that is just a LIE, because that isn't the quesiton of the Halting
problem, only of your POOP.
The Halting problem SPECIFICALLY asks the question if the machine
described by the input, that is the direct execution of DD(DD), will
halt or not when run.
Please show your reference that it can be ANYTHING like what you are
claiming, that is just your own pathological lie because you can not
face realitiy.
Since you lie about that, why should anyone believe your statements
about other things.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
> has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
> simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
Which isn't a proof, but does show a possible origin for your strawman
of why you thought you could change the question.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
> H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
> proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
> in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
> simulated by both of these instances of H.
It shows they were simulated correct for as far as they went.
The simulation of the CALL H is just WRONG,
Either you need to show the actual x86 instructions of HH being simulated,
or the simulation needs to show the equivalent return of HH, which since
you claim it correctly returns 0 would be that.
Any simulation that shows that HH will never return is just wrong, or is
ending with invalid or unsound logic from a correct partial simulation
(which is what sort of happens). Your logic "forgets" that if HH decides
to abort its simulation, then ALL copies of HH will do that an thus not
get stuck in the loop.
So HH either needs to get stuck in that loop by not deciding, and thus
fails to be the needed decider, or it uses incorrect logic to get the
wrong answer.
Which choice will be fixed by the algorithm that HH uses.
>
> It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
> sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
> assumption.
>
It has shown that you mind was on wrong things since then.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
WHO CARES?
It has been proven that answer doesn't tell us what we need to know, and
is just your strawman.
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
Which is just an admititon that you are not working on the halting
problem, since that IS based on the behavior of directly executed DD(DD)
and not any form of simulation at all.
So, you are just admitting that all your work is just deceptions and lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vont$a5e$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #335255 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the > actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny > verified facts .... You should stop swearing. "Verified facts" has a meaning, and that meaning isn't "false things Peter Olcott would like to be true". You've been dishonest about verified facts right from the beginning. For example, the Halting Theorem is a conclusively proven verified fact. Your refusing to accept that has just led to an enormous waste of people's time, most notably your own. > .... then we certainly cannot trust these people with more difficult > issues that require at least some slight degree of judgment call. I trust "these people". I do not, and cannot, trust you. > 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 above is a distortion of the truth. The dishonesty here is not "theirs". > 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. Otherwise known as spamming the newsgroup. The word "proof" also has a meaning, and that meaning isn't "false statements repeated ad nauseam by Peter Olcott". You should stop misusing that word. It means something you don't understand. [ .... ] > -- > 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 | 2024-06-07 17:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) |
| Message-ID | <v400hl$287qb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335258 |
On 6/7/2024 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
>>>> actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
>>>> verified facts ....
>>>
>>> You should stop swearing. "Verified facts" has a meaning,
>>
>> Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
>> they dishonestly deflect.
>
> It MIGHT be a fact, but it hasn't been "Verified" as in a formal process
> that certifies a statement to be true, or that it has been actually
> formally proven.
>
That is great you said that right before I was going to quit
looking at any of your replies. I enjoy talking to you yet not
at the expense of you undermining my life's work.
That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
is false conclusively proves that it is true and the proof
really need not be wrapped in any tuxedo.
We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
on this {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) |
| Message-ID | <v4010i$39ri5$23@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335262 |
On 6/7/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
>>>>> actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
>>>>> verified facts ....
>>>>
>>>> You should stop swearing. "Verified facts" has a meaning,
>>>
>>> Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
>>> they dishonestly deflect.
>>
>> It MIGHT be a fact, but it hasn't been "Verified" as in a formal
>> process that certifies a statement to be true, or that it has been
>> actually formally proven.
>>
>
> That is great you said that right before I was going to quit
> looking at any of your replies. I enjoy talking to you yet not
> at the expense of you undermining my life's work.
>
> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
> is false conclusively proves that it is true and the proof
> really need not be wrapped in any tuxedo.
Nope. Just shows you don't understand the meaning of True.
And you are apperently stuck out in the open in your birthday clothes as
it is revealed that you don't understand how logic works.
>
> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
> on this {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
Again, WHY?
Partial simulation does not prove non-halting.
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
>
So, you are just admitting that you aren't working on the halting
problem as that DOES require looking at the behavior of the directly
executed DD(DD).
So, you have admitted your defeat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v408qi$29nm5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335262 |
On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>> possible?
>>>
>>
>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>
>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>> know
>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>> hopeless.
>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they
>>> are
>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>
>>
>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>
>
> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to talk
> about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>
That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
proof that my most important words are correct.
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.
>
The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409nm$39ri6$22@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335270 |
On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>> possible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>
>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>>> know
>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>> hopeless.
>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>> they are
>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>
>
> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
> proof that my most important words are correct.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>
WHAT PROOF?
You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
and who cares?
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
Thus proving that you have never been working on a Halt Decider, as a
Halt Decider MUST report on the behavior of the direct execution of the
machine represented by its input.
All you are doing is proving that you are totally ignorant of the topic
you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409vo$29u1i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335273 |
On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>> possible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>> I know
>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>> they are
>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>
>>
>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>
>> 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.
>> >
>>
>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>
>
> WHAT PROOF?
>
> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>
>
>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>
>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
> and who cares?
>
>
OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
--
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 21:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40atr$39ri6$24@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335275 |
On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>>> I know
>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>
>>>
>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>
>>
>> WHAT PROOF?
>>
>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>
>>
>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>
>> and who cares?
>>
>>
>
> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>
To tell him what?
That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40bvi$29u1i$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335276 |
On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>
>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>> and who cares?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>
>
> To tell him what?
>
> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
Salvation
We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
Can salvation be lost?
Some say yes and some say no.
--
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 21:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ctd$3bc43$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335277 |
On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> and who cares?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>
>>
>> To tell him what?
>>
>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>
> Salvation
> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>
> Can salvation be lost?
> Some say yes and some say no.
>
Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a
true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40d8k$2acud$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335278 |
On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To tell him what?
>>>
>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>
>> Salvation
>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>
>> Can salvation be lost?
>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>
>
> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>
> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a
> true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
>
>
My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
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.
--
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 22:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ejp$3bc43$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335279 |
On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>
>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>
>>> Salvation
>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>
>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>
>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into
>> a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
>>
>>
>
> 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.
You have claimed to be like God in nature.
Need I go on?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40g1j$2eh7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335280 |
On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>>
>>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>>
>>>> Salvation
>>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and
>>>> they
>>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>>
>>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>>
>>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got
>>> into a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important
>>> to you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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.
That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things
are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect.
To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single
detail of my whole view of these things and find an error.
That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it
does not count as rebuttal.
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.
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.
--
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 22:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40gln$3bc43$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335281 |
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:
>>> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you
>>>>>>>>>> try to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>>>
>>>>> Salvation
>>>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and
>>>>> they
>>>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>>>
>>>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got
>>>> into a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely
>>>> important to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40h53$2elkd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335282 |
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. 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. >> >> 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web