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

On 6/7/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 11:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 11:29 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:

>
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.
>

I conclusively prove my point and you finally admit that your whole
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.
>
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 your last statement proves why you have the problem.
>

>
<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,

>
I provide conclusive proof otherwise and your "rebuttal" is
that you are unwilling to examine my proof, after three years
of misleading strawman deception fake "rebuttals".

>
No, you don't.
>
It seems
>

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

>
Why? I have shown that is a useless question for the problem.
>

>
*I have proven it thousands of times in the last three years*
2,000 times would only be an average of less than two proofs
per day.

>
No, you haven't PROVEN it, but argued it must be true.
>
You don't seem to know what a formal proof actually is.
>
I don't care about your claim, because it is, by defintion, a dead end, as far as halting is concerned, as partial simulation do not show non-halting behavior by themselves.
>

>
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.
>

 *HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID*
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.
 >
 The context of that is that this is essentially the same proof
that I have presented for three years. A 2021 version is on
pages 4-5 of this paper.

So, you don't understand basic English, I guess that shows how little you care about truth.
I read what you say, which is just a CLAIM (and not a proof), but will not put in my own effort to see if I can confirm or deny your claim, because it is meaningless.
I guess that YOU don't care about what is actually true either, but are looking for way to deceptively twist the words of others for your own pleasure.
Sorry, but you are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.

 *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

Which isn't a "proof", but just you stating your arguments.
In particular, you NEVER actual work from any actual accepted truths of the field, but only crude references to the design of the machines in the proof, and your own ideas of what that means.

 The record shows that you never directly addressed the proof
that P correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless
aborted. The record shows that you always deflected away from
this with the strawman deception.
 

Because I don't care about it, since it says nothing about P halting.
Because your whole arguement STARTED with your strawman back then.
The question was NEVER a subjective question about what the decider could see, but ALWAYS about the OBJECTIVE behavior of the actual machine,.
Your "logic" just shows that you don't understand this.
You "logic" is not based on starting from truth and moving forward with truth preserving operations, but by starting with presupositions that you try to argue make some sense. This is just the arguments of abstract philosophy, not proofs of formal logic.