Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335887 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-23 08:40 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-26 19:47 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:40 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? (typo corrected) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:20 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 16:41 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 17:49 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 17:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 18:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 17:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 18:58 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 18:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 19:44 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 19:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 20:24 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 20:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 21:13 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 20:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 21:30 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 20:36 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 22:00 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 21:09 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 22:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 21:27 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 22:31 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 21:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 21:52 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 23:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 22:26 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 08:39 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:17 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 18:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:19 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 18:43 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:59 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 19:02 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 20:06 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 19:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 20:54 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 20:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 21:13 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 20:22 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 21:24 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure (typo) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 20:07 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure (typo) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 21:22 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 20:32 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 21:51 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 20:55 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 22:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 21:17 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 22:25 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 21:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 22:26 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 21:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 22:48 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 21:52 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 06:59 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 22:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 07:04 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:02 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 20:59 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:17 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:54 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:25 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:32 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:37 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 06:58 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:33 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:50 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:19 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:24 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:40 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 20:12 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:21 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:37 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 22:25 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 07:44 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:28 -0500
Re: Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 09:33 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 23:09 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:14 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 20:33 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 22:03 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 22:28 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-24 19:44 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 15:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:19 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:48 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:47 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 20:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d54b$16ra5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335942 |
On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
>>>>>>>>>> foolish that long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
>>>>>>>> you quit lying about this point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101
>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff
>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>> [00002104] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002106] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002107] c3 ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And my reply, like always, So?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
>>>>>> you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
>>>>>> between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
>>>>>> what a damned liar you really are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the LIE?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems YOU are the LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
>>>>>> the last point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do we care about it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good, so you are admitting you have nothing important to say.
>>
>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and
>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will
>> proceed to the next step.
>
> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING,
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
as the directly executed D(D) because
the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
is correctly simulated by H.
D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly return from its call to H(D,D).
--
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 | 2024-06-24 21:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d5k5$10m6o$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335943 |
On 6/24/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
>>>>>>>>>>> foolish that long.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
>>>>>>>>> you quit lying about this point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101
>>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff
>>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>> [00002104] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002106] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002107] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And my reply, like always, So?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
>>>>>>> you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
>>>>>>> between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
>>>>>>> what a damned liar you really are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the LIE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems YOU are the LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
>>>>>>> the last point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what do we care about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good, so you are admitting you have nothing important to say.
>>>
>>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and
>>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will
>>> proceed to the next step.
>>
>> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING,
>
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
What lies?
>
> D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
> as the directly executed D(D) because
>
> the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
> is correctly simulated by H.
Which just means that the D correctly simulated by H trace stops in the
middle of the simulation of H, exactly duplicating the trace of the
direct exectution of D(D) until H stops.
>
>
>
> D correctly simulated by H
> cannot possibly return from its call to H(D,D).
>
Which mean NOTHING, as it isn't the definiton of Halting, so not the
proper criteria of a Halt Decider.
You are just brainwashed by your own lies.
Since you NEVER show anything about the behavior of the direct execution
of D(D) which is the defined behavior that H is supposed to answer
about, you haven't shown anything interesting.
Until you actually do something to establish some real meaning to your
POOP definition of D correctly simulated by H, you have nothing to go on.
And, as has been pointed out, one problem with your "property" of "D
correctly simulated by H" is that it is shown to be a SUBJECTIVE
criterion, and thus naturally not interesting by default, since we are
concerned with OBJECTIVE truth.
This seems to be a weakness of your whole logic system, that seems to
lean towards this sort of quesiton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 20:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d64a$172v7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335945 |
On 6/24/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
>> as the directly executed D(D) because
>>
>> the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
>> is correctly simulated by H.
>
> Which just means that the D correctly simulated by H trace stops in the
> middle of the simulation of H,
Why risk your salvation on head games?
Anyone that totally understands the following code knows
that you are lying about that.
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.
--
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 | 2024-06-24 21:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d694$10m6p$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335946 |
On 6/24/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
>>> as the directly executed D(D) because
>>>
>>> the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
>>> is correctly simulated by H.
>>
>> Which just means that the D correctly simulated by H trace stops in
>> the middle of the simulation of H,
>
> Why risk your salvation on head games?
What Head Games, I am just point out the truth, and where you are lying.
>
> Anyone that totally understands the following code knows
> that you are lying about that.
>
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
> [00002183] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>
Which mean NOTHING about halting, dispite all your FALSE CLAIMS.
Youare just following your father's lead and speaking in words that are
only half true to tell your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 20:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure (typo) |
| Message-ID | <v5d57o$16ra5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335942 |
On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and >> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will >> proceed to the next step. > > Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING, > but insist you get to LIE about what halting is. > > You are just talking about your POOP. > > You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about. > >> >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> >> > > Where? *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D) because the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D is correctly simulated by H. -- 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 | 2024-06-24 21:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure (typo) |
| Message-ID | <v5d65b$10m6p$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335944 |
On 6/24/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and >>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will >>> proceed to the next step. >> >> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING, >> but insist you get to LIE about what halting is. >> >> You are just talking about your POOP. >> >> You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about. >> >>> >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> >>> >> >> Where? > > > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* What lies? > > D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior > as the directly executed D(D) because No, it just means that the D correctly simulated by H's trace stops in the middle of the simulation of H, exactly duplicating the trace of the direct exectution of D(D) until H stops. > > the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D > is correctly simulated by H. > Which mean NOTHING, as it isn't the definiton of Halting, so not the proper criteria of a Halt Decider. You are just brainwashed by your own lies. Since you NEVER show anything about the behavior of the direct execution of D(D) which is the defined behavior that H is supposed to answer about, you haven't shown anything interesting. Until you actually do something to establish some real meaning to your POOP definition of D correctly simulated by H, you have nothing to go on. And, as has been pointed out, one problem with your "property" of "D correctly simulated by H" is that it is shown to be a SUBJECTIVE criterion, and thus naturally not interesting by default, since we are concerned with OBJECTIVE truth. This seems to be a weakness of your whole logic system, that seems to lean towards this sort of quesiton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 20:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d6np$177ej$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335942 |
On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and >> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will >> proceed to the next step. > > Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING, > but insist you get to LIE about what halting is. > > You are just talking about your POOP. > > You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about. > >> >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >> >> > > Where? *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D) because the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D is correctly simulated by H. -- 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 | 2024-06-24 21:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d7r9$10m6o$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335949 |
On 6/24/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and >>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will >>> proceed to the next step. >> >> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING, >> but insist you get to LIE about what halting is. >> >> You are just talking about your POOP. >> >> You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about. >> >>> >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped* >>> >>> >> >> Where? > > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* But you can't show any statement I have made that is actually a LIE, so nothing to reverse. (You may not agree with my statements, but you can't show them wrong) > > D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior > as the directly executed D(D) because > > the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D > is correctly simulated by H. > But the Correct Simulation by H of D follows EXAXCTLY the sequence of the directly executed D(D) until H stops, so there is no DIFFERENT behavior seen by H, only LESS of it. The "behavior" you talk about is mpore the behavior of H then the input, or a fact about the PARTIAL behavior seen by H. It in no way shows that the input to H shows "Non-Halting" behavior, since that BY DEFINITION refers to the bahavior of the actual machine represented by the input. Your H can't simulate D to the return is a behavior of H, not of D. So, your argument just fails.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 20:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d81s$17fhi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335942 |
On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
>>>>>>>>>> foolish that long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
>>>>>>>> you quit lying about this point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter
>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101
>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff
>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>> [00002104] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002106] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002107] c3 ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And my reply, like always, So?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
>>>>>> you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
>>>>>> between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
>>>>>> what a damned liar you really are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the LIE?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems YOU are the LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
>>>>>> the last point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do we care about it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good, so you are admitting you have nothing important to say.
>>
>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and
>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will
>> proceed to the next step.
>
> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING,
> but insist you get to LIE about what halting is.
>
> You are just talking about your POOP.
>
> You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about.
>
>>
>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>>
>>
>
> Where?
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
You said that D correctly simulated by H must
have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
as the directly executed D(D) because
the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
is correctly simulated by H.
--
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 | 2024-06-24 22:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d8fr$10m6o$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335951 |
On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
>>>>>>>>>>> foolish that long.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
>>>>>>>>> you quit lying about this point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>> [000020e2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e5] 51 push ecx ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020e9] 50 push eax ; push parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ed] 51 push ecx ; push parameter
>>>>>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff call 00001422 ; call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>> [000020fd] 7402 jz 00002101
>>>>>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe jmp 000020ff
>>>>>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>> [00002104] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002106] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002107] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And my reply, like always, So?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
>>>>>>> you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
>>>>>>> between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
>>>>>>> what a damned liar you really are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the LIE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems YOU are the LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> H0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
>>>>>>> the last point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what do we care about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>> *It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good, so you are admitting you have nothing important to say.
>>>
>>> I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and
>>> mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will
>>> proceed to the next step.
>>
>> Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING,
>> but insist you get to LIE about what halting is.
>>
>> You are just talking about your POOP.
>>
>> You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about.
>>
>>>
>>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>>> *I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Where?
>
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say.
>
> You said that D correctly simulated by H must
> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly
executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
You seem to agree, as you can't point out the difference, you just say
they must be different, even though you know it not to be true.
>
> D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
> as the directly executed D(D) because
>
> the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
> is correctly simulated by H.
>
Which isn't a behavior of the simulation but of H, that it stops before
the input reaches that point, which a full simulation of it does.
You made your behavior SUBJECTIVE, which means it is as much the
behavior of the observer as it is of the obeserved.
Since we have an objective version of the behavior of the simulation of
the input, we can see what is the cause of the differences, and it isnt
the input, it is the decider.
The SIMULATION has identical behavior to the sub-set of the direct
execution it contains. The "conclusion" is the behavior of the decider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 21:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d9cb$1bem6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335952 |
On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > > You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say. > >> >> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). > > Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly > executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, > > NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. > The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to D correctly simulated by H1 This is not the same behavior as D correctly simulated by H -- 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 | 2024-06-24 22:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d9qe$10m6p$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335953 |
On 6/24/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> >> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say. >> >>> >>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >> >> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly >> executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >> >> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >> > > The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to > D correctly simulated by H1 > > This is not the same behavior as > D correctly simulated by H > > > So, which instruction "Correctly Simulated" by H had a different result than that same instruction simulated by H1? Failure to point it out is an admission that you are a liar. By the semantics of the x86 instructions set, there can't be one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 21:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d9iv$1bem6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335952 |
On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* > > You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say. > >> >> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). > > Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly > executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, > > NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. > Honest mistake or liar? The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to D correctly simulated by H1 *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* This is not the same behavior as D correctly simulated by H *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* -- 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 | 2024-06-24 22:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5d9s6$10m6p$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335954 |
On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >> >> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say. >> >>> >>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >> >> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly >> executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >> >> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >> > > Honest mistake or liar? > > The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to > D correctly simulated by H1 > *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* > > This is not the same behavior as > D correctly simulated by H > *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* > And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct executions trace? Faiure to show it is just an admission that you have been lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 21:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335956 |
On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>> >>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I >>> say. >>> >>>> >>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>> >>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>> >>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>> >> >> Honest mistake or liar? >> >> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >> D correctly simulated by H1 >> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >> >> This is not the same behavior as >> D correctly simulated by H >> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >> > > And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct > executions trace? > D correctly simulated by H *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* -- 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 | 2024-06-24 22:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335957 |
On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>> >>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I >>>> say. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>> >>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>> >>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>> >>> >>> Honest mistake or liar? >>> >>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>> >>> This is not the same behavior as >>> D correctly simulated by H >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>> >> >> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct >> executions trace? >> > > D correctly simulated by H > *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* Which isn't "Behavior of the input" The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. > > D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) > *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* > Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of D by H, plus more. H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't due to the input, but due to H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 21:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5dbds$1bpnq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335958 |
On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>> >>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what >>>>> I say. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>> >>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>>> >>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Honest mistake or liar? >>>> >>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>> >>>> This is not the same behavior as >>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>> >>> >>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct >>> executions trace? >>> >> >> D correctly simulated by H >> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* > > Which isn't "Behavior of the input" > > The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that > the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. > >> >> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) >> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >> > > Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of > D by H, plus more. > > H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't > due to the input, but due to H. These are not the same behaviors *the call from D to H(D,D) CANNOT POSSIBLY return* *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* -- 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 | 2024-06-25 06:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5e7uf$12a1a$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335959 |
On 6/24/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> >>>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what >>>>>> I say. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>>>> >>>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Honest mistake or liar? >>>>> >>>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>>>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>>> >>>>> This is not the same behavior as >>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>>> >>>> >>>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct >>>> executions trace? >>>> >>> >>> D correctly simulated by H >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >> >> Which isn't "Behavior of the input" >> >> The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that >> the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. >> >>> >>> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>> >> >> Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation >> of D by H, plus more. >> >> H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't >> due to the input, but due to H. > > These are not the same behaviors > *the call from D to H(D,D) CANNOT POSSIBLY return* > *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* > But that isn't "Behavior of the input". The problem is your first statement isn't correctly stated, it should be: The simulation of the call from D to H(D,D) didn't reach the return statement, because it was stopped. "Call" instructions, themselves, do not "Return". Programs return from being called. In your first statement, you aren't looking at the "Program" of H(D,D), but a PARTIAL simulation of it, so to not be deceptive, you need to be clear what you are talking about. Of course, YOU don't want to do that, as it makes it clear what is happening so you can't change definitions later to say that the program it was part of didn't halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-24 22:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5dckm$1bteo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335958 |
On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>> >>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what >>>>> I say. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>> >>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>>> >>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Honest mistake or liar? >>>> >>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>> >>>> This is not the same behavior as >>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>> >>> >>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct >>> executions trace? >>> >> >> D correctly simulated by H >> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* > > Which isn't "Behavior of the input" > > The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that > the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. > >> >> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) >> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >> > > Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of > D by H, plus more. > > H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't > due to the input, but due to H. *These are not the same behaviors* (Assuming unlimited memory) When 1 to a googolplex of steps of D are correctly simulated by H *the call from D to H(D,D) NEVER RETURNS* For D correctly simulated by H1 or directly the executed D(D) *the call from D to H(D,D) ALWAYS RETURNS* -- 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 | 2024-06-25 07:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure |
| Message-ID | <v5e87h$12a1a$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335960 |
On 6/24/24 11:13 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>> >>>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what >>>>>> I say. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the >>>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>>>> >>>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Honest mistake or liar? >>>>> >>>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>>>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>>> >>>>> This is not the same behavior as >>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>>> >>>> >>>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct >>>> executions trace? >>>> >>> >>> D correctly simulated by H >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >> >> Which isn't "Behavior of the input" >> >> The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that >> the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. >> >>> >>> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) >>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>> >> >> Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation >> of D by H, plus more. >> >> H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't >> due to the input, but due to H. > > *These are not the same behaviors* > > (Assuming unlimited memory) > When 1 to a googolplex of steps of D are correctly simulated by H > *the call from D to H(D,D) NEVER RETURNS* Correction, 1 to a googleplex of steps if DIFFERENT Ds, each paired with a DIFFERENT H, when simulated by that H, the DIFFFERENT routines called by those DIFFERENT Ds to that DIFFERENT H(D,D) is never simulated to an end. > > For D correctly simulated by H1 or directly the executed D(D) > *the call from D to H(D,D) ALWAYS RETURNS* > But for every one of those googolplex different inputs, H1 can correctly simulate that D to an end. Yes, the behavior of all those H's is different from the behavior of H1, but the "behavior of the input" as a representaton of a program, was always the same, just only partially revealed by all those Hs. You just "forget" to mention some key facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web