Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/7/2024 10:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Which means that you admit that you are not talking about Halting, which DOES talk about the directly executed DD(DD), but about your POOP, which no one cares about.Op 07.jun.2024 om 17:29 schreef olcott:you could show how DD correctly simulated by any HHOn 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your wholeOn 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.
>
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
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.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.