Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact

On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated.

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

>
>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.
>

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

>
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

 THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
Since partial simulations, or simulation of a different input, don't prove non-halting behavior of this input, it just doesn't matter.
So, I guess we are stuck until you just die of your cancer.
I am going to take your just repeating of what I have said is worthless as an admission that you can't think of any way to show that it actually means something, your admission that this is just the strawman that you "proof" has been based on for years, that doesn't actually prove what you claim.

 *I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
 

And I will dumb it down for you.
I DON'T CARE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM MEANS NOTHING IMPORTANT.

_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
 *Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
 *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf