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

On 2024-07-05 15:06:49 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 7/5/24 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-04 12:37:19 +0000, olcott said:
 

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

 I'm not competing nor planning to compete if that is what you mean.
If you mean that I can't compete that is ulikely to be tested.
I have competed and won but that was long ago.
 Anyway, as you have no counter argument my comment stands as written.

 I guess that just went above your head, as you read the wrong word.

No, I just intentilnally misinterpreted the word.

Incompetent:
not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully
 You ARE incompetent at logic, and Computation Theory (and a lot of other things too).

That I don't alwasy show much skills does not mean that I don't have.

Non-Halting Turing Machines exist that NEVER repeat their state.

Take that as a hint that I do know at least something about computation
theory.
--
Mikko