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

On 6/7/24 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

>
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.
>

 The proof that you have lied about this is your above admission
that you have always ignored the following proof that I am correct
by using the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

And for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that accurated reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed machine, which means one that doesn't just stop before reaching the end.
Thus, your H doesn't do a correct simulation, or correctly predicts what ANY correct simulation of the input does, so, can not in the second clause use anything from the first, since it wasn't established.

 Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
 

Why? Because you are just tring to redefine the meaning of a core term.
Since HH DOESN'T correctly simulate by the meaning you just last mentioned for it, your question is just invalid.
And shows that you are just being deceptive.

_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.
 

And anyone claiming your definition of correct simulation can not use Professors Sipser's comments, as they use a different one,
So, you are admitting to breaking your own rules by LYING about what someone said.
You are just admitting that NOTHING you have been talking about applied to the Halting Problem, but only to your POOP, and no one cares about your POOP.