XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/30/2025 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/29/25 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>> olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> [ .... ]   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   >>>>>>> Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation   
   >>>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as   
   >>>>>>> proven   
   >>>>>>> by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The   
   >>>>>>> infinity is   
   >>>>>>> only in your dreams.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD calls   
   >>>>>> HHH(DDD)   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD DOES   
   >>>>>> NOT   
   >>>>>> CALL HHH1(DDD)   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are no   
   >>>>> position to   
   >>>>> call anybody else here a liar.  Glass house inhabitants, throwing   
   >>>>> stones,   
   >>>>> and all that.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by sticking to   
   >>>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous.  Not any more.   
   >>>>> That is   
   >>>>> a most unwelcome change.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> void DDD()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>    return;   
   >>>> }   
   >>>   
   >>>> *That not one single person here*   
   >>>> (besides those that I invited from the C groups)   
   >>>> acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies   
   >>>> recursive simulation   
   >>>   
   >>>> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides   
   >>>> willful deception.   
   >>>   
   >>> Foul mouthed lying on your part.  It can be attributed to your lack of   
   >>> self awareness and lack of technical ability.  Everybody here but you   
   >>> can   
   >>> see that.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It is not any lack of technical ability that determines   
   >> whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or   
   >> cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.   
   >   
   > Yes, it IS YOUR lack of technical ability the shows that you don't know   
   > what you are talking about.   
   >   
      
   The function does do what it does do even if no one knows this.   
      
   > Since your HHH doesn't do a correct simulation per the definition of the   
   > field, you claim that it does is just a lie.   
   >   
      
   HHH does emulate N x86 instructions of DDD correctly.   
   This includes the x86 instructions of DDD emulated by   
   the emulated HHH. No one can possibly correctly show   
   otherwise.   
      
   > And logic based on lies is just unsound.   
   >   
      
   That you cannot even point out one mistake makes   
   you calling me a liar libelous. Instead of any   
   name calling try to stick with the actual facts.   
      
   >>   
   >> Instead of addressing this you used the dishonest dodge   
   >> of ad hominem attack. It is for this exact same reason   
   >> that I am justified in calling out liars.   
   >   
   > No, the fact that you keep on misusing words is our justification for   
   > calling you a lair.   
   >   
      
   There has never been any material mistake in anything   
   that I have said and you cannot show otherwise. The   
   reason that you resort to ad hominem attacks is that   
   you know that I never made any actual material mistakes.   
      
   *This is what I mean by proof*   
   *A proof is any sequence of steps deriving a necessary result*   
      
   The sequence of steps that I refer to is the execution trace   
   specified by the x86 instructions of my code.   
      
   > Trying to use your lies to justify calling someone else a liar just   
   > shows your own stupidity.   
   >   
      
   You cannot even point to a single mistake.   
   If you had a sound basis then you could use   
   that and have no need of any ad hominem or insults.   
   >>   
   >> As soon as the first person utterly gives up dishonestly   
   >> trolling me and gives my work an actual fair review I   
   >> will treat that person with kindness and respect.   
   >   
   > Sorry, but it is YOU that has been dishonestly trolling, and thus YOU   
   > are the one that has lost the right to be treated with kindness and   
   > respect.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I tried kindness and respect for many years and the trolls   
   >> took this as weakness to be exploited.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But still kept your ignorant lies.   
   >   
      
   That you cannot even correctly point to a single mistake   
   and that you calling me a liar anyway is libelous.   
   May you reap whatever you sow.   
      
   > Sorry, you have killed any hope of being respected, and cemented your   
   > place in the trashheap of history.   
   >   
   > You have proved that you turned yourself into an intentional idiot, with   
   > no idea of the actual meaning of the word, because you were afraid that   
   > the TRUTH would brainwash you into thinking about reality.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)