Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #105431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-23 12:04 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-24 18:17 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 12:04 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 21:22 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 22:41 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 22:06 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 23:47 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 22:59 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 07:18 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 14:57 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 17:03 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 16:27 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 18:17 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-24 12:46 +0200
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 07:14 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 14:52 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 17:03 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 16:35 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 18:18 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:06 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 15:03 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 17:03 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 16:37 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 18:18 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-24 09:37 +0200
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:10 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 15:01 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 17:03 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 16:39 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 18:17 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 17:20 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 19:20 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 23:28 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 08:52 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 12:56 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 14:16 -0400
D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 15:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 14:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 16:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 17:04 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:13 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 17:18 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:29 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 17:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:03 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:52 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:13 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 17:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 18:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 19:14 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 19:40 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 19:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 21:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 19:45 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 21:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 20:47 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 21:09 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 22:18 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 21:16 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 21:03 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 22:25 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 21:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 07:43 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 09:13 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 12:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 12:01 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 13:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 12:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 13:48 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 12:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 14:01 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 13:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 14:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 14:14 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 16:20 -0400
A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 17:47 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 19:07 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 18:45 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 20:15 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 19:21 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 20:44 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 20:03 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 21:19 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 21:06 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 22:30 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 21:53 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 23:15 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 21:43 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 23:05 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 22:17 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 23:30 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 22:47 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 09:27 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:25 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:48 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:06 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:25 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:46 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:58 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:22 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:33 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:45 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:21 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:32 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 18:44 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 19:08 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 20:17 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 19:26 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 20:48 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 20:04 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 21:24 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 20:39 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 21:54 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 21:01 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 22:23 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 21:41 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 22:52 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 21:59 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 07:34 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:20 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 11:37 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:13 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-30 10:06 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:20 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 16:00 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:35 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-31 19:51 +0200
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 10:52 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 09:37 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:20 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:52 +0000
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:26 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 15:45 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 10:42 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 08:21 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 15:29 +0200
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 11:01 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:36 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 18:16 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 23:27 +0800
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:28 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:58 +0200
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 14:00 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-03 20:01 +0000
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 16:17 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 10:36 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 08:07 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:23 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 11:07 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:48 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 18:19 +0300
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ -- key details Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 22:24 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 07:34 -0400
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:37 -0500
Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-25 21:09 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:27 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-26 12:47 +0200
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 08:38 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 12:03 +0300
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 07:14 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:16 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 13:31 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 15:07 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 17:03 -0400
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 16:41 -0500
Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 18:17 -0400
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 19:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2trch$23vgp$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105535 |
On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>
>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>
>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have
>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>
>>>
>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>
>>
>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the
>> terms that you are changing.
>>
>
> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being
deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
(Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
The implications of your specifications are:
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of
the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status.
3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the
concept of the behavior of a machine, and
4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in
the Linz or Sipser proofs.
5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone will
agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your lies.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
> was being referred to.
>
> *Correct Simulation Defined*
> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
> emulating D.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 18:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2trts$331vq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105536 |
On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>> >>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>> >>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>> >>>> >>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>> >>> >>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>> terms that you are changing. >>> >> >> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* > > Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being > deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first > > (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) > > > The implications of your specifications are: > > 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of > the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status. > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the > concept of the behavior of a machine, and > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in > the Linz or Sipser proofs. > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > 5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone will > agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your lies. *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 19:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2tsub$23vgp$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105537 |
On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>> >>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>> >>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>> >>>> >>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>>> terms that you are changing. >>>> >>> >>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >> >> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >> >> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >> >> >> The implications of your specifications are: >> >> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >> > > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do intend for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, then there are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will need to be met. Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer for same input. You then need to show that you can actually make such a machine. > >> 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior >> of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status. >> > > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating the acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition definition includes the additional property that if the instruction wasn't a terminal instruction of the program, that the next instruction MUST be simulated too. > >> 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the >> concept of the behavior of a machine, and >> > > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > >> 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in >> the Linz or Sipser proofs. >> > > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them. You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after if you get what you want. >> 5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone >> will agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your >> lies. > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > > *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line Note, It doesn't matter to me if we get stuck here, it just shows that you don't have anything to go on. YOU on the other hand, are on a short clock and want to get things resolved. The ball is in your court
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 19:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2tup8$33eps$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105538 |
On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>> >>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>> >>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>>>> terms that you are changing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>> >>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>> >>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>> >>> >>> The implications of your specifications are: >>> >>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>> >> >> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. > > After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do intend > for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, then there > are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will need to be met. > > Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer > for same input. > > You then need to show that you can actually make such a machine. > >> >>> 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior >>> of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status. >>> >> >> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. > > After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating the > acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition definition > includes the additional property that if the instruction wasn't a > terminal instruction of the program, that the next instruction MUST be > simulated too. > >> >>> 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the >>> concept of the behavior of a machine, and >>> >> >> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > >> >>> 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in >>> the Linz or Sipser proofs. >>> >> >> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > >> >> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* >> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* >> > > And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down > the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them. > > You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a > reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, > because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after if > you get what you want. > WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. It has already been proven that tolerating *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* cannot possibly ever get anywhere. *THIS NEW POLICY MAKES TROLLING ME UTTERLY IMPOTENT* Thus if trolling me is your only intent then you will only get boilerplate replies from me. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u2ue$23vgp$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105539 |
On 5/25/24 8:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> >>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>>>>> terms that you are changing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> >>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>> >>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>>> >>>> >>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>> >>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>> >>> >>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST >> >> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >> >> After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do >> intend for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, >> then there are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will >> need to be met. >> >> Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer >> for same input. >> >> You then need to show that you can actually make such a machine. >> >>> >>>> 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual >>>> behavior of the machine given on the input, especially about its >>>> halting status. >>>> >>> >>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST >> >> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >> >> After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating >> the acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition >> definition includes the additional property that if the instruction >> wasn't a terminal instruction of the program, that the next >> instruction MUST be simulated too. >> >>> >>>> 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the >>>> concept of the behavior of a machine, and >>>> >>> >>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST >> >> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line >> >>> >>>> 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things >>>> in the Linz or Sipser proofs. >>>> >>> >>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST >> >> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line >> >>> >>> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* >>> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* >>> >> >> And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down >> the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them. >> >> You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a >> reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, >> because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after >> if you get what you want. >> > > WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I > AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. And I will continue to pin you down on the implications of your defininitions. > > WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I > AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. > > WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I > AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. > > It has already been proven that tolerating > *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > cannot possibly ever get anywhere. Ir ian't a strawman, it is pointing out FACTS about your definitions. > > *THIS NEW POLICY MAKES TROLLING ME UTTERLY IMPOTENT* > Thus if trolling me is your only intent then you will > only get boilerplate replies from me. > No, MY new policy seems to make YOU UTTERLY IMPOTENT, as you are the one on the clock. YOu can accept the limitations now, or they get put to you on the later step when you try to do what was blocked, and you have no "agreement" to lie about to try to prop up your lies. The implications of your specifications are: 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status. 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the concept of the behavior of a machine, and 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in the Linz or Sipser proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 19:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u0o5$33mgp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105538 |
On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>> >>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>> >>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>>>> terms that you are changing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>> >>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>> >>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>> >>> >>> The implications of your specifications are: >>> >>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>> >> >> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. > I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105540 |
On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>> >>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the >>>>>> terms that you are changing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>> >>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>> >>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>>> >>>> >>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>> >>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>> >>> >>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST >> >> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >> > I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE > STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. > > I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE > STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. > > I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE > STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. > Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps if you will not accept the limitations of your defintions, and we then get to look at your later steps and point out where you are changing your definitions. If the steps work with agreement, they work without it. Unless of course, the issue is that by putting them together, the inconsistencies are too obvious. This is how most proofs are presented, as a single unified whole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 20:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u4cc$349br$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105542 |
On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> >>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>> >>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>> >>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS >>>> POST >>> >>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> > > > > Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not going to help. It turns out that there are six steps. When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied. That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING. I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them that too. TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR. *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 22:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u5f4$23vgp$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105543 |
On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> >>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>> >>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>> works) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS >>>>> POST >>>> >>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >> >> >> >> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps > > When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not > going to help. It turns out that there are six steps. It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications of your definitions. > > When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false > assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied. No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule. > > That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is > TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING. Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean. If you accept my implications, just say so. If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef > > I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that > your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them > that too. > > TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW > AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR. I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the definitions are agreed to. I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is can you actually prove it. At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find no counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis. > > *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* > *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* > *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* > If you want, I can just say that my implications do apply and give my answer conditioned on it, then if you want to disagree with that inplication, that means we have go back to step 1. IS that what you REALLY Want? Is that what you want to agree to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u5ju$38795$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105545 |
On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't >>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>>> works) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF >>>>>> THIS POST >>>>> >>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps >> >> When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not >> going to help. It turns out that there are six steps. > > It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications of > your definitions. > >> >> When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false >> assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied. > > No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule. > >> >> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is >> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING. > > Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean. > > If you accept my implications, just say so. > > If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef > >> >> I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that >> your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them >> that too. >> >> TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW >> AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR. > > I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a > stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the > definitions are agreed to. > > I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it > doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is can > you actually prove it. > > At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you > statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But > that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will > speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find no > counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter > example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so > you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis. > >> >> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >> > > If you want, I can just say that my implications do apply and give my > answer conditioned on it, then if you want to disagree with that > inplication, that means we have go back to step 1. > > IS that what you REALLY Want? > > Is that what you want to agree to? The Socratic method has very specific requirements that cannot be circumvented with good results. It catches and tosses Trolls aside. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 22:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u65n$23vgo$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105546 |
On 5/25/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't >>>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>>>> works) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing >>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF >>>>>>> THIS POST >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps >>> >>> When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not >>> going to help. It turns out that there are six steps. >> >> It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications >> of your definitions. >> >>> >>> When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false >>> assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied. >> >> No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule. >> >>> >>> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is >>> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING. >> >> Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean. >> >> If you accept my implications, just say so. >> >> If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef >> >>> >>> I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that >>> your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them >>> that too. >>> >>> TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW >>> AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR. >> >> I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a >> stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the >> definitions are agreed to. >> >> I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it >> doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is >> can you actually prove it. >> >> At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you >> statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But >> that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will >> speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find >> no counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter >> example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so >> you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis. >> >>> >>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL* >>> >> >> If you want, I can just say that my implications do apply and give my >> answer conditioned on it, then if you want to disagree with that >> inplication, that means we have go back to step 1. >> >> IS that what you REALLY Want? >> >> Is that what you want to agree to? > > The Socratic method has very specific requirements that cannot be > circumvented with good results. It catches and tosses Trolls aside. > You do understand that the Socratic Method for a discussion has back and forth questioning. Only as a TEACHING method is it one way, and I reject that you have anything to teach me. YOU want to prove something to me. That is NOT the goal of the Socratic Method, so you are using a screwdriver to put in a nail. So, agree to the implications, or work on trying to show that they don't actually apply, which likely means altering your definitions, since I pull those implications from the basics of Computability theory, that likely means theaking or better explaining what you mean. Of course, since you are trying to prove the impossible, ultimately you are doomed to fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u61m$388je$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105545 |
On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't
>>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being
>>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic
>>>>>>> works)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF
>>>>>> THIS POST
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps
>>
>> When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not
>> going to help. It turns out that there are six steps.
>
> It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications of
> your definitions.
>
>>
>> When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false
>> assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied.
>
> No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule.
>
>>
>> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is
>> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING.
>
> Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean.
>
> If you accept my implications, just say so.
>
> If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef
>
>>
>> I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that
>> your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them
>> that too.
>>
>> TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW
>> AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR.
>
> I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a
> stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the
> definitions are agreed to.
>
> I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it
> doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is can
> you actually prove it.
>
> At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you
> statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But
> that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will
> speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find no
> counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter
> example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so
> you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis.
>
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
Right and the above might not actually be {infinite recursion}
it might really be a dead bird in a bush.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 22:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 |
| Message-ID | <v2u68d$23vgo$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105547 |
On 5/25/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A
>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't
>>>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is
>>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being
>>>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic
>>>>>>>> works)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing
>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF
>>>>>>> THIS POST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps
>>>
>>> When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not
>>> going to help. It turns out that there are six steps.
>>
>> It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications
>> of your definitions.
>>
>>>
>>> When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false
>>> assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied.
>>
>> No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule.
>>
>>>
>>> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is
>>> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING.
>>
>> Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean.
>>
>> If you accept my implications, just say so.
>>
>> If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef
>>
>>>
>>> I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that
>>> your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them
>>> that too.
>>>
>>> TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW
>>> AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR.
>>
>> I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a
>> stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the
>> definitions are agreed to.
>>
>> I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it
>> doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is
>> can you actually prove it.
>>
>> At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you
>> statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But
>> that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will
>> speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find
>> no counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter
>> example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so
>> you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis.
>>
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> Right and the above might not actually be {infinite recursion}
> it might really be a dead bird in a bush.
>
Red Herring.
I thought you said you were avoiding strawmen, so Why are you making
them yourself.
I guess you are just proving you are just a Hypocrite, as well as a
pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2u5a0$349br$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105542 |
On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>> >>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>> >>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>> >>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS >>>> POST >>> >>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> >> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >> > > > > Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 22:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2u6if$23vgo$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105544 |
On 5/25/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have >>>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false* >>>>>> >>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>> >>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>> works) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS >>>>> POST >>>> >>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>> >> >> >> >> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps > > *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* > *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* > > *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* > *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* > > *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* > *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* > > *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* > *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* > > *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* > *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* > If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical pathologocial lying idiot. As I said, your definitions, if you reject the implications, are inconsistant and need to have further restrictions implied, which makes your existing H not meet your (adjusted) definitions, Of course, the problem is that you just don't have the background to understand any of this. The ONLY reason I see for you to be resisting clearing up the implications, is that you KNOW that doing so will break your plan to try to slyly change the definitions in later steps to claim that the implications are not there. That, or your whole logic is just shown to be totally wrong because you didn't know what you were doing (which is likely the case too).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2u7fj$38fjo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105550 |
On 5/25/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't >>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>>> works) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF >>>>>> THIS POST >>>>> >>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps >> >> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >> >> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >> >> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >> >> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >> >> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >> > > If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is > proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical > pathologocial lying idiot. > > I ask for specific reasoning and instead you provide insults this is additional evidence that you are a dishonest troll. You have provided valuable feedback that has got us to this point in our dialogue. I told a close friend that your review of my work has greatly increased the quality of my words. Now that these words finally are very good you deny easily verified facts. This could possibly result in your eternal incineration even if I myself doubt it. Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless,[a] the polluted, the murderers, the sexually immoral,[b] the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” I asked a street preacher with a masters degree in divinity about this last night and he said agreed that a woman that consistently lies about her weight by one pound condemns herself if she does not repent. My church says that only those the know the truth and deny it anyway will be so condemned. According to the bible the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 07:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2v79q$25ell$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105551 |
On 5/25/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/25/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/25/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A >>>>>>>>>>> BASIS* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't >>>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of >>>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is >>>>>>>>> false* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being >>>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic >>>>>>>> works) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing >>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF >>>>>>> THIS POST >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. >>>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE >>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps >>> >>> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >>> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >>> >>> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >>> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >>> >>> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >>> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >>> >>> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >>> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >>> >>> *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me* >>> *that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise* >>> >> >> If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is >> proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical >> pathologocial lying idiot. >> >> > > I ask for specific reasoning and instead you provide insults > this is additional evidence that you are a dishonest troll. Because, as I have said, the answer and reasoning changes depending on what you acknowledged are the implications of your stipulations. For instance, if your actual understanding of being a "Pure Function" is that the program is the equivalent of a Turing Machine, then we need to add a strictness to the definition that isn't normally used for just "Pure Functions", like accessing value of registers like the program counter or stack pointer might not be allowed in some cases. (which breaks you H). > > You have provided valuable feedback that has got us to this > point in our dialogue. I told a close friend that your review > of my work has greatly increased the quality of my words. So, take some more advice and give answers to the questions. > > Now that these words finally are very good you deny easily > verified facts. But you have either misunderstanding of the meanings of your words, or you don't understand their implications. If you really mean the surface meaning of your words, then you need to accept the implications of those. If you have other meanings in your mind, they need to be said. Just like when I provided the "C Function" for H that wasn't a pure function, because your current requirements NEVER SAID PURE, but those were added afterwords, we need to verify that there are not any other implied but not stated requirements, as would be implie by > > This could possibly result in your eternal incineration even > if I myself doubt it. > > Revelation 21:8 > But as for the cowardly, the faithless,[a] the polluted, the murderers, > the sexually immoral,[b] the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, > their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which > is the second death.” > > I asked a street preacher with a masters degree in divinity about this > last night and he said agreed that a woman that consistently lies about > her weight by one pound condemns herself if she does not repent. And why do you think he would be an expert on this? > > My church says that only those the know the truth and deny it anyway > will be so condemned. > And they are wrong, because God has provided enough proof that he exists to all, that those who reject him are condemned (Rom 1:20 and surrounding). Thus, ALL have had the ability to know the truth, so ay who reject him are under his wrath. > According to the bible the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against > the Holy Spirit. > But you do not know the Bible, but only seem to have a surface understanding of what it says, Just like your understanding of logic, you don't know what the Bible says, because you never actually studied it, but just apparently skimmed it, and think you know the deep meanings of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 09:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2vg1g$3e8pb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105557 |
On 5/26/2024 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
> Because, as I have said, the answer and reasoning changes depending on
> what you acknowledged are the implications of your stipulations. For
> instance, if your actual understanding of being a "Pure Function" is
> that the program is the equivalent of a Turing Machine, then we need to
> add a strictness to the definition that isn't normally used for just
> "Pure Functions", like accessing value of registers like the program
> counter or stack pointer might not be allowed in some cases. (which
> breaks you H).
>
Since we can see (and you already agreed) that D correctly simulated
by pure simulator H remains stuck in infinite recursive simulation then
we also know that D never reaches its own line 06 and halts in less
than an infinite number of correctly simulated steps.
This is what I had in mind all along. Because I am a relatively
terrible communicator it takes me a very long time to translate
my intuitions into simple words.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 12:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest? |
| Message-ID | <v2vo5h$26570$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105562 |
On 5/26/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2024 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
>
>> Because, as I have said, the answer and reasoning changes depending on
>> what you acknowledged are the implications of your stipulations. For
>> instance, if your actual understanding of being a "Pure Function" is
>> that the program is the equivalent of a Turing Machine, then we need
>> to add a strictness to the definition that isn't normally used for
>> just "Pure Functions", like accessing value of registers like the
>> program counter or stack pointer might not be allowed in some cases.
>> (which breaks you H).
>>
>
> Since we can see (and you already agreed) that D correctly simulated
> by pure simulator H remains stuck in infinite recursive simulation then
> we also know that D never reaches its own line 06 and halts in less
> than an infinite number of correctly simulated steps.
But it depends on what H actually does, which you refuse to agree to.
Yes, you have shown that a blindly simulating H that never aborts will
get into an infinite simulation loop with D and thus NEITHER of them
return a result.
THAT IS ALL THAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO. That an H that never aborts, and
the D that calls that particular H form a non-halting pair.
But that H doesn't answer, so can't be the decider you claim.
The meaning and results of your more complicated statement (and if such
an H can be written) has yet to be determined.
>
> This is what I had in mind all along. Because I am a relatively
> terrible communicator it takes me a very long time to translate
> my intuitions into simple words.
>
And that is why I am asking you to agree to the consequences of your
statements, as that helps confirm that you are saying what you think you
are saying.
If your implications don't match what you think, then you don't have
your terms properly defined.
This is where if you would have taken the time to learn the language of
the field you are talking about would have been a big help.
Since you don't actually know it, we don't know if you mean what you are
saying, as has been found to have been the problem in the past.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 12:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- |
| Message-ID | <v2vpt6$3g0m3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105566 |
On 5/26/2024 11:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/26/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/26/2024 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>>
>>> Because, as I have said, the answer and reasoning changes depending
>>> on what you acknowledged are the implications of your stipulations.
>>> For instance, if your actual understanding of being a "Pure Function"
>>> is that the program is the equivalent of a Turing Machine, then we
>>> need to add a strictness to the definition that isn't normally used
>>> for just "Pure Functions", like accessing value of registers like the
>>> program counter or stack pointer might not be allowed in some cases.
>>> (which breaks you H).
>>>
>>
>> Since we can see (and you already agreed) that D correctly simulated
>> by pure simulator H remains stuck in infinite recursive simulation then
>> we also know that D never reaches its own line 06 and halts in less
>> than an infinite number of correctly simulated steps.
>
> But it depends on what H actually does, which you refuse to agree to.
>
When I specify that D is correctly simulated by pure function H, that
means that H is a pure simulator that stops simulating D after some
finite number of correctly simulated steps. There is absolutely nothing
else that needs to be known about H besides this.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web