Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:42 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:46 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:14 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:48 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

>
By replying to a yes or no question with the full
and complete justification forces the respondent
to look more deeply into these things than simply
dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.

>
But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
>

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

>
And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only includes the code of the function DDD as you've stated below,

>
*In other words you are too stupid to understand this*
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

>
Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below)
>

>
If you disagree with the above you are disagreeing
with a self-evident truth.
>

>
I see you made no attempt to refute what I said, confirming your agreement.
>

>
Not at all. I will not tolerate any scatter-brained
attempt at changing the subject, especially when you
proved that you don't even understand the meaning of
the words.

>
>
Just admit that you're not working on the halting problem and people will stop disagreeing with you.
>

>
We have been over this too many times.
Do you really not remember what I said?
>

>
I remember that you said that your HHH doesn't take a description / specification of an algorithm,

>
I never said that

>
Yes you did, see below.  As you yourself said:
>

>
When you reply with just the word-for-word quote of
me saying exactly that I will look at the quote. I
will not even look at your attempt to change the
subject.
>

>
You said, as quoted below:
* That the machine code of function HHH is not part of the finite string input DD / DDD
* That 000015c3 is not an instruction of DDD
>

>
No time/date stamp indicates that you are probably lying.

>
Note the "as quoted below" part.  As you yourself said:
>

>
I am looking for an exact word-for-word quote with
a time and date stamp RIGHT HERE, all of your
misdirection indicates that you have no such thing.

>
That you can't be bothered to look down a few lines

>
Proves that I will not tolerate anything besides
a direct verbatim quote that is time-and-date
stamped that 100% exactly proves your claim.
>
That you keep insisting on muddying the waters
with something besides this seems to prove that
you are dishonest.
>

>
About what I'd expect from someone who just admitted to lying about working on the halting problem all this time:
>

>
I already addressed this too.
This seems to prove that you never
pay any attention to anything that I say.
>

>
I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
>
* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct

 I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit.
 Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false
assumption means incorrect?

And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
Which is precisely what the proof prove

 

* DDD is not correctly simulated by HHH

 You are a damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.

Nope:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH

 

* The simulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborts

 You are a damned (condemned to actual Hell) liar.

Nope, times 2:
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.
On 6/3/2025 10:54 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 6/3/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 6/3/2025 9:42 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 6/3/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 6/3/2025 8:57 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> So how exactly do HHH and HHH1 emulate the first instruction of HHH
 >>>>> differently?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> The question is incorrect.
 >>>> HHH emulates DDD two times and HHH1 emulates DDD one time
 >>>> the whole second time is the divergence.
 >>>
 >>> There is no divergence if the instructions are emulated exactly the
 >>> same in both cases.
 >>
 >> HHH1(DDD) emulates DDD exactly one time.
 >> HHH(DDD) emulates DDD exactly two times.
 >>
 >> The whole second time that HHH emulates DDD is
 >> divergence.
 >>
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has failed to identify an
 > instruction that HHH and HHH1 emulated differently.
 >
 >>
 >>> What happened before either emulation started is irrelevant.
 >>>
 >>> The only way for the emulations to diverge is if there is a
 >>> particular instruction such that X happens if HHH emulates it and Y
 >>> happens if HHH1 emulates it.  Again, what happened before either
 >>> emulation started is irrelevant.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> So I'll ask one more time:  how exactly do HHH and HHH1 emulate the
 >>> first instruction of HHH, or *any* instruction that is part of the
 >>> emulation of DDD, differently?
 >>>
 >>> Failure to provide the above explanation in your next reply or within
 >>> one hour of your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your
 >>> official on-the-record admission that the emulations of DDD performed
 >>> by HHH and HHH1 do *not* diverge but are in fact the same up to the
 >>> point that HHH aborts.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > Let The Record Show
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted:
 >
 > That the emulations of DDD by HHH and HHH1 in fact do *not* diverge but
 > are in fact the same up to the point that HHH aborts.