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

On 6/7/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
verified facts ....

>
You should stop swearing.  "Verified facts" has a meaning,

>
Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
they dishonestly deflect.

>
It MIGHT be a fact, but it hasn't been "Verified" as in a formal process that certifies a statement to be true, or that it has been actually formally proven.
>

 That is great you said that right before I was going to quit
looking at any of your replies. I enjoy talking to you yet not
at the expense of you undermining my life's work.
 That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
is false conclusively proves that it is true and the proof
really need not be wrapped in any tuxedo.

Nope. Just shows you don't understand the meaning of True.
And you are apperently stuck out in the open in your birthday clothes as it is revealed that you don't understand how logic works.

 We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
on this {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
 Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

Again, WHY?
Partial simulation does not prove non-halting.

 _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
 A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
 Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
 

So, you are just admitting that you aren't working on the halting problem as that DOES require looking at the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD).
So, you have admitted your defeat.