Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

On 6/6/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/6/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated.

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

>
>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.
>

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

>
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.

>
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>
THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT

>
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>

>
Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
essence of my life's work.
>

>
My relentless pursuit did eventually wear you down so that
you finally admitted that you have been simply dodging the
point for three years with CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
fake rebuttals.
>

>
Nope, I guess you are just admitting via projection that your arguement have no real basis of facts to work with.
>

 You lie about this. You say right above that you insist
on refusing to look at these verified facts thus showing
your true colors for all the world to see.

But they are worthless "facts", as you seem to be admitting since YOU refuse to even try to rebut my arguement about them.
Partial Simulation shows NOTHING itself about if the machine simulated will eventually halt.
Simulations of other inputs (like DD paired to a different HH) show nothing about the behavior of THIS input.
Either publically accept those facts, so we can move on, or show them to be wrong.
Because you have shown a propensity to lie about what others say, I refuse to acknoldge statements that I can see a way you can twist them to mean something different.
It is YOUR failure to carry through that has blocked your path, and may well be dooming you to an eternity in Gehenna.

 Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

WHO SHOULD CARE, since it doesn't prove anything about the problem you claimed to be working on?

 _DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH