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.
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 have been told this repeatedly, so your refusal to listen just
proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar that reckless
disregards the truth and beleives his own lies.
If you have reasoning to prove otherwise provide it otherwise
everyone will know that you have no basis for any rebuttal.
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*
The behavior that a machine description specifies to a UTM
IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS FINITE STRING
YOU ARE SIMPLY VERY CONFUSED
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.
We can "define" that it does halt and that would be the same as
"defining" that all puppies are fifteen story office buildings,
inherently incorrect.
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.
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.
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:pls no ableism
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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:
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that >>>>>>>>>>> the above link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possibleIn other words you have always known that I am correct that DDWhat 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.
correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT and yet still try to
get away with pure bluster.
because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible,
your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*In that case, H is not simulating it correctly.
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
On 6/5/2024 3:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 04.jun.2024 om 23:53 schreef olcott:
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.
By changing definitions you can prove many things.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,4) cannot correctly return the sum of 5 + 6.
H(D,D) cannot possibly return the halt status of D(D) because
D calls H in recursive simulation thus forcing the behavior of
D correctly simulated by H to be different than the behavior of
the directly executed D(D).
Requiring H(D,D) to return the halt status of D(D) is exactly
the same as requiring sum(3,4) to return the sum of 5 + 6.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
No one has ever shown otherwise all that anyone has ever provided
is dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible
because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible,
your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*
That you continue to try to get away changing the subject to the
direct execution of DD(DD) that has provably different behavior as
your rebuttal is the strawman deception and might possibly get you
sent to Hell. I hope not. I hope that either (a) you are confused
or (b) you repent or (c) The bible is wrong about all liars:
Revelations 21:8
...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
To the best of my knowledge I am not taking any chances on this. There
are sometimes when I complement someone and after the fact I carefully
study my words and find that I inadvertently exaggerated a little bit.
I never use flattery knowing full well that it is deception.
On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible
because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible,
your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*
Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of
computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation)
PERIOD.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
*That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar*
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible
because you just don't know what you are talking about, or
possible, your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*
Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition of
computation theory (or the general concept of a correct simulation)
PERIOD.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* >>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
*That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar*
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a
machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and
that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior
of a different machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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:You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
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* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*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.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible >>>>>>>> because you just don't know what you are talking about, or
possible, your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*
Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition
of computation theory (or the general concept of a correct
simulation)
PERIOD.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated
by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
*That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar*
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a
machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and
that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior
of a different machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
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:You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
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* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*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.
You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics,
possible because you just don't know what you are talking
about, or possible, your medication has made your brain too >>>>>>>>>> fuzzy.
*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*
*One can lie about this yet this lie is easily exposed*
Then HH does not correctly simulate the input per the definition >>>>>>>> of computation theory (or the general concept of a correct
simulation)
PERIOD.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated >>>>>>> by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf >>>>>>>
*That you cannot find any error seems to prove that you are a liar* >>>>>>>
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of >>>>>> a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped,
and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the
behavior of a different machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care about
that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking about
the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the
machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me
caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm
that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is
MEANINGLESS.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation >>>>>>>> of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation
stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells
you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care
about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from
talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE
behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will
you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal. >>>>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm
that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is
MEANINGLESS.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial
simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then >>>>>>>>>> simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care
about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from
talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE
behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider,
will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual
rebuttal.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm >>>>>> that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is >>>>>> MEANINGLESS.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I
am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial
simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT >>>>>>>>>>>> machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine >>>>>>>>>>>> then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care >>>>>>>> about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from
talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the
OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt >>>>>>>> Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with >>>>>>>> a factual rebuttal.
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>
confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn
because it is MEANINGLESS.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I
am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line >>>>>>>>>> from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the >>>>>>>>>> OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a >>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down >>>>>>>>>> hard with a factual rebuttal.
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I
am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001db2] 55 push ebp
[00001db3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001db5] 51 push ecx
[00001db6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001db9] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001dba] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dbd] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001dbe] e8bff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
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.
On 6/6/2024 11:48 AM, ornott wrote:
On 5/06/24 04:55, olcott wrote:
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.
The machine description of DD specifies (to everyone) that it halts if
HH(DD,DD) returns 0.
From: ornott <news2@immibis.com>
established Liar.
On 5/06/24 04:19, olcott wrote:a > decider.
It is fully operational C code it can run out of stack space
even if you give it googolplex of terabytes.
Sounds like it's infinite recursion. Infinite recursion doesn't halt. Deciders always halt, so a program that's infinitely recursive isn't
On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine then simulated.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001dbe]
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT >>>>>>>>>>>>> UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the >>>>>>>>>>>> line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, >>>>>>>>>>>> to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input
represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and >>>>>>>>>>>> slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to >>>>>>>>>>>> confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn >>>>>>>>>>>> because it is MEANINGLESS.
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe] >>>>>>>>>>>>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
because I am not willing to put that effort into your
worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct,
because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless >>>>>>>> claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I
am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am
not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_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
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 170:10:53 |
| Calls: | 9,703 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,736 |
| Messages: | 6,178,354 |