Re: When Richard calls people liars he lies

On 6/7/24 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:37 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

 On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> 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.
 >
 Richard has finally admitted that he never looked at
any of these proofs thus finally admitting that his
dishonest dodge CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
fake rebuttal was always dishonest and deceptive.

That is NOT what I have said, som you just prove yourself to be a LIAR.
I said I haven't put the effort to look into the factuality of your claim, which is just a claim since you haven't actually stated a proof,.
IF you want to claim a proof, I will ask for a listing of the accepted predicates that your proof uses as its starting point, and the listing of the truth perserving operation.
Having never posted such a thing, you have never "Proved" your statement in the formal system of computation theory.
Sorry Peter, but you have been debunked.

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

And why does that matter?
And is that question what you "call a proof"?
It isn't, and you SHOULD know it, but don't seem to.

 _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.
 

Which just means that you are proving that your HH isn't a halt decider, BY DEFINITION since that IS required to report on the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) as that is what the question asks about, so you are just admitting to have been using a strawman for your argument.