Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? --- Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/5/24 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-04 12:37:19 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/4/2024 1:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-03 13:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>

Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
kernelization process
https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>
>

And the x86 language says the same thing,
>
YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>
Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.

>
You continue to assume that you can simply disagree
with the x86 language. My memory was refreshed that
called you stupid would be a sin according to Christ.
I really want to do the best I can to repent.
>

>
But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>

>
You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is
incorrect when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
proves that it is correct.

>
Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to the final end.

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are false?
>

>
And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop in the emulation.
>

>
Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.

>
Why do they get to lie?
>

>

Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a fully correct emulator.
>

>
You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>

>
Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>

>
Why do you keep lying about this?
As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.

>
No, it has not. When it sees a repeating state first time there is no way
to know that it is a repeating state.

 

You are incompetent

 I'm not competing nor planning to compete if that is what you mean.
If you mean that I can't compete that is ulikely to be tested.
I have competed and won but that was long ago.
 Anyway, as you have no counter argument my comment stands as written.
 

I guess that just went above your head, as you read the wrong word.
Incompetent:
not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully
You ARE incompetent at logic, and Computation Theory (and a lot of other things too).
Non-Halting Turing Machines exist that NEVER repeat their state.