Sujet : Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 07. Jun 2024, 16:14:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/6/24 10:56 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.
>
>
If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a way to not-prove the thing you were trying to prove
No you are just a Liar
Then try to show it.
Of course, you haven't been able to show the actual truth of ANY meaningful statement you claim.
If it is a fact that the essence of you life's work is that you can show that this is an input that your decider can not possibly correctly partially simulate to a final state, then you have done nothing towards your goal of refuting the Halting Problem or establishing a way to prove truth.
PERIOD.
And, it seems that you realize that you don't know how to actually PROVE your statement, as you are desperately seeking people to confirm it is true, so you can move on.
by sidetracking yourself with inappropriate definition to try to acheive your deception, I guess you are admitting defeat, and that you actually don't know anything about what you talk about.
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact