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:What are you asking for a counter example of?
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 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.
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.
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
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:What are you asking for a counter example of?
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 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*
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 486 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 134:30:09 |
| Calls: | 9,657 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,707 |
| Messages: | 6,166,830 |