XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/25/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/25/25 5:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/25/2025 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 7/25/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, but you call anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I didn't call them a liar just because they disagreed.   
   >> I called them a liar when they changed the words that   
   >> I said and then used these changed words as the basis   
   >> of their rebuttal.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by   
   >>>> HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.   
   >>>   
   >>> No,   
   >>   
   >> Yes you are a liar otherwise.   
   >>   
   >>> insisting that the criteria *IS* DDD simulated by HHH is the   
   >>> dishonest claim, since it is a violation of the definition of halting.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If you want to insist on lying I will not stop calling you a liar.   
   >>   
   >>> The only simulation that can be used as a replacement for the direct   
   >>> execution is the CORRECT (which means complete with no aborting)   
   >>   
   >> That you expect a correct simulation of a non-terminating   
   >> input to be infinite is fucking nuts. When one instruction   
   >> of a non-terminating input is correctly emulated then it   
   >> is dishonest to conclude that zero instructions were emulated   
   >> correctly.   
   >>   
   >>> SIMULATION of the exact input, which must include in it ALL the code   
   >>> used.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Except it doesn't, as, as shown, it also includes statements that are   
   >>> just blantently incorrect.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Since that is not the way that most people take   
   >> the meaning of the word your use of this term   
   >> in that way is libelous.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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*   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you miss the requirement that to be correct, it must continue to   
   >>> the final state, as that is also part of the x86 language.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That is fucking nuts. Non-terminating inputs cannot   
   >> reach any final state.   
   >>   
   >>> Partial simulations are NOT "correct" when talking about non-halting.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   >>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   >>      would never stop running unless aborted then   
   >>   
   >> until H correctly determines   
   >> until H correctly determines   
   >   
   > [[ Two year old style rant trimed ]]   
   >   
   > But H can't "Correctly Determine" that, since it isn't true.   
   >   
      
   I have told you that 500 times and you keep contradicting it.   
   That is either dishonestly or brain damage.   
      
   --   
   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)