Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/31/2025 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 11:47 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/31/2025 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 10:45 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/31/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 5:12 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 31/05/2025 10:46, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-30 18:40:01 +0000, olcott said:

>
<snip>
>

>
to HHH(DDD)
does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.

>
No, it is not. Nobody has seen the input to HHH(DDD) running forever.
So the "non-halting" is not a verified fact.

>
>
The unfailingly patient Mike Terry will forgive me if I have remembered him incorrectly, but I seem to recall... wait... I can quote him:
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just as a reminder I'll repeat the final outcome of all this:
>
-  PO's H does decide NEVER_HALTS for TM H^ running with input <H^>.
-  PO's H^ running with input <H^> in fact halts, in line with Linz logic (b) above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
...so it halts. End of, one would think.
>
>

>
That is the same thing as saying that you never have
to eat because you know that after you eat you will
no longer be hungry.
>
The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH before it has
been aborted is different than the behavior of DDD
emulated by HHH1 after HHH has already aborted its DDD.
>
These differences have always been there for three years
and everyone here thinks that they can just assume them away.
>
>

>
>
The emulation performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:
>

>
*You are a damned liar*
HHH performs two recursive emulations of DDD.
HHH performs one non-recursive emulation of DDD.
>
>

>
Not up to the point that HHH aborts it doesn't.
>

 No stupid. HHH performs one whole recursive
emulation of DDD more than HHH1 ever does
 

Nope, if that was true you would have previously identified the divergence but failed to do so.
That you trimmed the below proof of your admission shows that you're not interested in an honest dialogue.

On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.