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

On 2024-06-05 03:21:50 +0000, olcott said:

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.

That looks like you don't konw what "DD correctly simulated by HH"
means. If you want anyone to seriously consider your words you shold
not write in a way that people tend to regard as a sign of stupidity.
--
Mikko