Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

Op 07.jun.2024 om 17:29 schreef olcott:

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:

On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>
THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT

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

>
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.
>

I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your whole
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception fake rebuttal has always simply
ignored the proof that I am correct shown below:
 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.

Does that imply that you think that the direct execution does not execute the instructions of the x86 machine language of DD correctly and in correct order?
If both the simulation and the direct execution process the instructions of the x86 machine language of DD correctly and in correct order, then why should they differ?

 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 the claim is that HH does not report about the real behaviour, then the report of HH is not about the halting property of DD, but about HH's deciding procedure. This becomes trivially true and meaningless.