XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.software-eng

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
the last instruction of this input.



--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.

All you have shown with your recent arguements is that H's incomplete,
and thus incorrect, simulation doesn't get to that point.

You lies that this "Proves" your claim are just that, LIES.

A simulation that is aborts is NOT a "Correct Simulation" for showing
Halting, as the program being simulated didn't just disappear then.

Note, your arguement about "No number of steps" is using logic that
breaks the requirement that H be an actual computation.

H must have a FIXED algorithm, and for ANY algorithm you assign to it,
if it does abort its simulation of P and return non-halting, then that simulation is proved to be incorrect and the answer wrong. And if the
algorithm doesn't abort its simulation then if fails to answer, and is
thus also wrong.

All that arguing over "All Possible H's" does is show that your template
fails for every case, not that any particular one is correct.

You failure to understand this just shows that you don't understand how computers, especially the x86, works, or what Computation Theory is about.

You are just PROVING your ignorance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
reach the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it reaching the final state, as have YOU.

That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
ever reach the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.

That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be,
other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.

(Note, PROGRAM)

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?

YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.

You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae.
Why lie does that give you A thrill?

Hopefully you will not be incinerated eternally.
This seems far too harsh to me.

YOU are the one who is making up your
own reality and denying that God exists

God is proven to exist empirically in that the fundamental nature of
reality is entirely different than what we have been brainwashed to
believe.

(since you can not analytically
prove that he does, and by your words, if you can't analytically prove
it, it isn't true).

--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
reach the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.

That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be,
other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

(Note, PROGRAM)

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?

YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are. YOU are the one who is making up your
own reality and denying that God exists (since you can not analytically
prove that he does, and by your words, if you can't analytically prove
it, it isn't true).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself. >>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual >>>>>>> validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
would ever reach the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.

That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.

(Note, PROGRAM)

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right? >>>

YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.

You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae.
Why lie does that give you A thrill?

No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
location it is called.

What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
guilty of lying.

You idle use of those words is just ad-hominem attacks, which just
proves that you have nothing to back your words. (At least I specify the details of what you are lying about).

Hopefully you will not be incinerated eternally.
This seems far too harsh to me.

I have no fear of that, for I know my savior. You, on the other hand
deny him and are guilty of the sin of lying that you accuse other of.

YOU are the one who is making up your own reality and denying that God
exists

God is proven to exist empirically in that the fundamental nature of
reality is entirely different than what we have been brainwashed to
believe.

Really, BY YOUR Definition. What SENSE gives you ACTUAL PROOF (by your definition). Have you actually seen him with your eyes? Heard him with
your ears?

Remember, YOU are the one that said empirical proof needs to be based on
the physical senses and not based on "thoughts".

Yes, God proves himself to those willing to believe, but not in the
sense you require, so YOUR logic denies him, and thus so do you, and
that condemns you to the fire you try to foist on others.

All you do is prove that you don't really believe the definitions you
want to impose, which makes you a Hypocrite, which is one of the worse
types of liars.

 (since you can not analytically prove that he does, and by your
words, if you can't analytically prove it, it isn't true).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/23/2022 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself. >>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
actual validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering? >>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of

steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
would ever reach the last instruction of this input.

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.

That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.

(Note, PROGRAM)

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo,
right?

YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.

You know that you are not following the definition of the x86
langugae. Why lie does that give you A thrill?

No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
location it is called.

What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
guilty of lying.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)