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

On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:

https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>
It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
their face.
>
>

>
The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the machine being simulated.
>

 *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link*

You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
You are just proving that you don't understand how logic works, apparently because logic is just above your ability

 

You have been told this repeatedly, so your refusal to listen just proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar that reckless disregards the truth and beleives his own lies.

 If you have reasoning to prove otherwise provide it otherwise
everyone will know that you have no basis for any rebuttal.
 

The fact that in Computation Theory, the only concept of simulation that shows behavior is by a defintion that requires that the simulation match that behavior. it is sort of a Tautology.
A simulation can only correctly show the behavior, if the results of the simulation correct show the actual behavior of the thing simulated.
So, since DD(DD) DOES HALT if HH(DD,DD) returns 0, because it claims it "correct simulation" indicated it was non-halting, means that BY THE DEFINITON OF CORRECT, its simulation can not be "correct".
If you want to claim that something that is objectively wrong can be correct, please show it.
Your logic just brings your system into massive contradiction, and thus it is worthless.