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

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:

On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*

>
What are you asking for a counter example of?
>

>
The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to
simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot
possibly prove otherwise.

>
No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0.
>

>
In other words you have always known that I am correct
that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT
and yet still try to get away with pure bluster.
>

>
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible, your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
>

>
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*

>
Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation)
>
PERIOD.

>
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>
*That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar*
>

>
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.
If you want to talk about HH's PARTIAL (but correct as far as it goes) simulation not reaching to DD's final state, go ahead, I won't argue about that, except to point out that this does NOT prove that the input represents non-halting behavior to the halt decider.
It is the difference between not being able to prove halting behavior, and being able to prove non-halting behavior, HH just doesn't have the data to prove the behavior.
Partial simulations give a 3 state result.
1) If they reach a final state, they prove Halting.
2) If they create enough data that you can form a valid induction to prove that this exact input, if given to a UTM, would never halt, we can prove non-halting. (Note, that is the input that FULLY describes the FULL machine, and thus for DD includes all the code for the HH that was deciding it), or
3) IF they can't do either, as is the case for HH, it just just say that the input didn't-yet-halt, that it came to a non-decision. Of course, Deciders can't leave it that way, which is why we can't actually have Halt Deciders that are correct for all inputs.
Now, if you start to use terminology that implies rather that HH's partial simulation not reaching a final state, but that DD is actually non-halting, I will point out your LIES, as that is what you need to do to say that, as you just don't have the proof, and it HAS been pointed out to you.

 _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*