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

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.

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

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).

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

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).

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

On 5/23/22 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

What do you define as a CORRECT simulation?

What was wrong with what I said as a Correct Simulation (or what you published)

YOU DID publish such a trace (see below)


On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 > void H_Hat(u32 P)
 > {
 >  u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
 >  if (Input_Halts)
 >    HERE: goto HERE;
 > }
 >
 >
 > int main()
 > {
 >  H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
 > }
 >
 >
 > _H_Hat()
 > [00000b98](01)  55                  push ebp
 > [00000b99](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
 >
[00000b9b](01)  51                  push ecx
 > [00000b9c](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > [00000b9f](01)  50                  push eax
 > [00000ba0](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > [00000ba3](01)  51                  push ecx
 > [00000ba4](05)  e88ffdffff          call 00000938
 > [00000ba9](03)  83c408              add esp,+08
 > [00000bac](03)  8945fc              mov [ebp-04],eax
 > [00000baf](04)  837dfc00            cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
 > [00000bb3](02)  7402                jz 00000bb7
 > [00000bb5](02)  ebfe                jmp 00000bb5
 > [00000bb7](02)  8be5                mov esp,ebp
 > [00000bb9](01)  5d                  pop ebp
 > [00000bba](01)  c3                  ret
 > Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
 >
 > _main()
 > [00000bc8](01)  55                  push ebp
 > [00000bc9](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
 > [00000bcb](05)  68980b0000          push 00000b98
 > [00000bd0](05)  e8c3ffffff          call 00000b98
 > [00000bd5](03)  83c404              add esp,+04
 > [00000bd8](02)  33c0                xor eax,eax
 > [00000bda](01)  5d                  pop ebp
 > [00000bdb](01)  c3                  ret
 > Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
 >
 > ===============================
 > ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05)  68980b0000 push 00000b98
 > ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05)  e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
 > ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03)  8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
 > ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03)  8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01)  55         push ebp
 > ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
 > ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03)  8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01)  50         push eax
 > ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03)  8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
 > ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01)  51         push ecx
 > ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05)  e88ffdffff call 00000938
 > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is processed below:

 > ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03)  83c408     add esp,+08
 > ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03)  8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
 > ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04)  837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
 > ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02)  7402       jz 00000bb7
 > ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02)  8be5       mov esp,ebp
 > ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01)  5d         pop ebp
 > ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01)  c3         ret
 > ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03)  83c404     add esp,+04
 > ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02)  33c0       xor eax,eax

Click here to read the complete article