Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact

On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:

https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>
It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
their face.
>
>

>
The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the machine being simulated.
>

>
*I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link*

>
You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
>

>
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*

>
What are you asking for a counter example of?
>

>
The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to
simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot
possibly prove otherwise.

>
No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0.
>

>
In other words you have always known that I am correct
that DD correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT
and yet still try to get away with pure bluster.
>

>
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible, your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
>

 *It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*

Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation)
PERIOD.
Since the DEFINITION of Correctly simulating something is that the simulation matchs the behavior of the thing simulated, your claim is just a lie, and one that isn't an "honest mistake" since you keep repeating it after it has been pointed out.
The problem is that your are trying to define as a "Correct Simulation" something that is just a PARTIAL simulation, and that PARTIAL simulation does correctly show PART of the behavior of DD, but that isn't enough to conclude non-halting.
I will note, that you have been unable to find anyone to quote about your concept of simulation being valid (since you surely would have posed if you found one) since you haven't done so. This means you SHOULD know that you are barking up the wrong tree.

 That you continue to try to get away changing the subject to the
direct execution of DD(DD) that has provably different behavior as
your rebuttal is the strawman deception and might possibly get you
sent to Hell. I hope not. I hope that either (a) you are confused
or (b) you repent or (c) The bible is wrong about all liars:

But you haven't proven "DIFFERENT" behavior, as your PARTIAL simulation shows what it does show, that DD will call HH, and it will simulate for awhile.
The fact that HH can't simulate its input to the end is NOT a proof that it doesn't end.
The problem is that it is INVALID LOGIC (and just a bald face lie) to talk about the behavior of any other HH simulating a DIFFERENT DD as having anything to do the behavior of this DD, or that your HHs are some how simulation just one "template". (since Templates don't HAVE this sort of behavior to decide on, or even simulate).
All you have done is proven that the criteria you want to try to use, just doesn't work and doesn't actually provide a valid basis for HH to decide.

 Revelations 21:8
...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Which seems to be YOUR destination. I have no concerns, as my statements are rooted in truth.

 To the best of my knowledge I am not taking any chances on this. There
are sometimes when I complement someone and after the fact I carefully
study my words and find that I inadvertently exaggerated a little bit.
I never use flattery knowing full well that it is deception.
>

Well, it seems your only hope is that God judges you as a mentally incompetent person, since the "facts" you try to quote are just wrong.