XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to morally   
   >>>>>>>> corrupt to admit it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at this are   
   >>>>>>> you Damon?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> /Flibble   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask your lies.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I point out your stupidity to help people understand where you are   
   >>>>> coming from so they don't try to find the logic in your illogical   
   >>>>> statements.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning.   
   >>>> When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars.   
   >>>   
   >>> Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire.   
   >>>   
   >>> You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on him.   
   >>   
   >> OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while   
   >> I see that this is mutually respected and there is   
   >> no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest.   
   >   
   > Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest that   
   > doesn't count.   
   >   
      
   Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty.   
   Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by   
   HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.   
      
   > I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie.   
   >   
      
   The we must also agree that an actual lie only   
   includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement.   
      
   >>   
   >> For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated   
   >> by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD   
   >> have been emulated by HHH according to the rules   
   >> of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating   
   >> itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD).   
   >   
   > But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the statement   
   > is just a LIE.   
   >   
      
   That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes   
   that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86   
   language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION*   
      
   You cannot possibly refute that with any kind of correct   
   reasoning. That the emulation must be infinite to be   
   correct is fucking nuts.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)