Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case
De : acm (at) *nospam* muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Suivi-à : comp.theory
Date : 10. Jun 2024, 10:35:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : muc.de e.V.
Message-ID : <v46drm$13ke$1@news.muc.de>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

[ .... ]

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.

Then stop Lying!

*I never have lied and you know it*

You have frequently lied.  All these times when you have called your
notions "verified facts", but have been unable to show the verification.
All these other times when you have said something is "undeniably proven"
or the like, and there is no proof in sight.  And there was that little
lie when you said you had a fully worked out turing machine which
contradicted a well known proof of the Halting Theorem.

*THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*
*AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
*WINS DEFAMATION CASES*

You have failed to withdraw these lies, or apologize for them.

The only way you are not a liar might be that your grasp of truth is so
tenuous that you are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood.  Whether
that would win you a defamation case is somewhat questionable.

*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
*I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*

As an example you have insisted that you have proven the absurdity that a
correctly simulated machine D has a different behaviour from that same
machine running.  By the simple meaning of words, this cannot be true.
It is a lie.

That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that the x86
source-code of D exactly matches the two execution traces that I
provided.

That's a proof?  Maybe if the two execution traces, simulated and
running, matched, there might be something to go on.  But that would only
apply to a specific H and its D; you still have to prove it for the
general case.

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).


Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Jun 24 * Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt27olcott
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt26olcott
9 Jun 24  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt25joes
9 Jun 24   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt24olcott
9 Jun 24    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt23joes
10 Jun 24     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt22olcott
10 Jun 24      +* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt19Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i`* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt18olcott
10 Jun 24      i `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt17Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt16olcott
10 Jun 24      i   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt15Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt14olcott
10 Jun 24      i     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt13Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i      `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case12olcott
10 Jun 24      i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case7Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case6olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case5Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case2olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4Alan Mackenzie
10 Jun 24      i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years3olcott
10 Jun 24      i         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1joes
12 Jun 24      i         `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt2joes
10 Jun 24       `- Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal