Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/29/2025 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 11:49 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/29/2025 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

And he also added that it does not make a difference, because HHH still forgets to count the conditional branch instruction within the simulation of HHH.
Of course, you remove this most important part of his contribution.

>
We must achieve 100% complete closure on each point
one-at-a-time and not endlessly flit back and forth
across many different points never achieving closure
on any of them.
>
THIS POINT IS NOW CLOSED
*HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DDD*
>

>
>
False, as you have admitted otherwise on the record:
>

 So you disagree with Mike?
>

Not with what he actually agreed with:
On 5/25/2025 10:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 25/05/2025 21:30, olcott wrote:
 >> *VERFIED FACT*
 >> Mike Terry Proves ---
 >> How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
 >
 > Just for the record:
 >
 > 1)  I didn't offer any proofs of /anything/
 >
 > -  I did explain how Sipser's words can be naturally interpreted as
 > explaining
 >     how a simulating halt decider can operate.  [That is not a proof.]
 >
 > -  I also explained why that explanation *doesn't* apply to your HHH/DDD
 > pair
 >
 > i.e. the exact opposite of what you're claiming as *VERIFIED FACT*.
 >
 > STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS.
 >
 > Mike.

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