Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/4/24 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-03 13:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>

Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
kernelization process
https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>
>

And the x86 language says the same thing,
>
YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>
Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.

>
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>

>
But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>

>
You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that it is correct.

>
Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the final end.

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
>

>
And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop in the emulation.
>

>
Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.

>
Why do they get to lie?
>

>

Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a fully correct emulator.
>

>
You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>

>
Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>

>
Why do you keep lying about this?
As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.

>
No, it has not. When it sees a repeating state first time there is no way
to know that it is a repeating state.

You are incompetent

No, YOU are incompetent, and have admitted such.
Remember, you claimed there was a diagonalization proof that showed Godel was wrong, and then you claimed that such proofs are nonsense, so you admitted that you believe in nonsense proofs as a reason you are "correct".

 

That can be determined only when
the same state is seen again and then only if the state as seen the first
time is still fully remembered or reconstructed.
>
You have not proven that every detail of the state is inculded in determination.
>