Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 409 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:32 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:09 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:23 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-10 07:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eo28$cp5r$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333789 |
On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>> arises to the contrary. >> >> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >> >> PERIOD. > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > > Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> > *When you interpret* > On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: > *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* > *stop running unless aborted by H* > > as *D NEVER simulated by H* > > you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth > that would win a defamation case. Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. > > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D past line 3. THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eokj$3nb4c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333793 |
On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>>> arises to the contrary. >>> >>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >>> >>> PERIOD. >> >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> >> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> >> *When you interpret* >> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* >> *stop running unless aborted by H* >> >> as *D NEVER simulated by H* >> >> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth >> that would win a defamation case. > > Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. > *Prove it on this point* Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x >> >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> > > But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. > > I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D > past line 3. > > THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. > It is categorically impossible and you know it. It is the same shim-sham as your other proof. > The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates > that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie. The pillow guy keeps saying that he has proof and is having all of his assets taken away because he know that he lies about this. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1epbn$cp5s$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333799 |
On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>>>> arises to the contrary. >>>> >>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >>>> >>>> PERIOD. >>> >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> >>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> >>> *When you interpret* >>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* >>> *stop running unless aborted by H* >>> >>> as *D NEVER simulated by H* >>> >>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth >>> that would win a defamation case. >> >> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. >> > > *Prove it on this point* > Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x if there are no x. All x means there does not exist an x that is not that condition, thus all x have any legal property if there are no x. I guess that proves that you lie. > >>> >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> >> >> But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. >> >> I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D >> past line 3. >> >> THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. >> > > It is categorically impossible and you know it. > It is the same shim-sham as your other proof. Then why was I able to post it and not have you refute it? Are you willing to put up or shut up on that fact? > >> The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates >> that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie. > > The pillow guy keeps saying that he has proof and is having > all of his assets taken away because he know that he lies > about this. > Right, but he never posts it. I Have, you just can't find it, even though you read it, just like all the election deniers can't find the evidence of their claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333805 |
On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>
>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>
>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>
>>
>> *Prove it on this point*
>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>
> if there are no x.
>
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
we know that more than zero of them exist.
I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
we can extrapolate the trend from there:
1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
--
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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1etil$3o9rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333809 |
On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>
>> if there are no x.
>>
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
is not allowed to look at its caller.
--
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 | 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1fo8o$dt8i$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333810 |
On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>
>>> if there are no x.
>>>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>
>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>
>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>
>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>
>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>
>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>
>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>
> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>
> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>
Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and thus
needs to be defined to call just one H.
Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
behavior of the machine described by its input.
There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling H
(though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words of
the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus needs to
avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1gk7h$4imh$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333815 |
On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>
>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>
>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>
>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>
>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>
>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>
>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>
>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>
>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>
>
> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and thus
> needs to be defined to call just one H.
>
> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>
> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling H
> (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
> another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>
> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words of
> the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus needs to
> avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
We also must mutually agree that whenever any executed H(D,D)
stops simulating its input that no H ever returns any value to any
simulated D.
--
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 | 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333827 |
On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>
>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>
>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>
>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>
>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>
>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>
>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>
>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>
>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>
>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>
>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling
>> H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
>> another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>
>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
Nope, just proves my point.
>
> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
your claim have be
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>
Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
> We also must mutually agree that whenever any executed H(D,D)
> stops simulating its input that no H ever returns any value to any
> simulated D.
>
But that is INCORRECT and has been proven wrong.
THus, you are just proven to be a oathetic ignorant hypocritical
patholgocial lying idiot who has been proven to be DEAD WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9r2$9doe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333832 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcpo$flc1$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333845 |
On 5/8/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9uh$dca5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333832 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcqp$flc1$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333846 |
On 5/8/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9uv$dca5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333832 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcrf$flc1$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333847 |
On 5/8/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
Or are you just chicken?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1ifs5$gouj$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333850 |
Am Wed, 08 May 2024 22:36:31 -0400 schrieb Richard Damon: > On 5/8/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! > > Describing yourself. > Willing to take the challange? > If you are wrong, you give this up? > Or, don't you beleive yourself? > Or are you just chicken? Dear Richard, please don’t feed the troll. Counterspamming accomplishes nothing. Regards -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1fo8m$dt8i$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333809 |
On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>
>> if there are no x.
>>
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>
>
> But some is not all.
Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think
that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no H
can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorrect.
PROVEN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1fu99$3vngj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333814 |
On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>
>>> if there are no x.
>>>
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>
>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>
>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>
>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>
>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>
>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>
>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>>
>> But some is not all.
>
> Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think
> that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
>
The template specifies that D(D) is calling the same H(D,D)
that invokes it. All instances conform to the template.
I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
The above template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
we know that more than zero of them exist.
I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
we can extrapolate the trend from there:
1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
8th element of H/D pairs 8 steps of D are simulated by H
next step of the second recursive simulation at line 02
9th element of H/D pairs 9 steps of D are simulated by H
this ends the second recursive simulation before line 03
> The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no H
> can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorrect.
>
> PROVEN.
--
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 | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <1cd6aaae52b9dec5cb3dfd85320faf5703bc464b.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #333819 |
On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 08:21 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
> > > > > > > > > about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
> > > > > > > > > assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
> > > > > > > > > arises to the contrary.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PERIOD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> > > > > > > *When you interpret*
> > > > > > > On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> > > > > > > *stop running unless aborted by H*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> > > > > > > that would win a defamation case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *Prove it on this point*
> > > > > Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
> > > >
> > > > if there are no x.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> > > 01 int D(ptr x)
> > > 02 {
> > > 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > > 04 if (Halt_Status)
> > > 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> > > 06 return Halt_Status;
> > > 07 }
> > > 08
> > > 09 int main()
> > > 10 {
> > > 11 H(D,D);
> > > 12 }
> > >
> > > The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> > > where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
> > >
> > > I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> > > we know that more than zero of them exist.
> > >
> > > I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> > > we can extrapolate the trend from there:
> > >
> > > 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> > > 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
> > >
> > > 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
> > >
> > > 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> > > next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
> > >
> > > 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> > > last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
> > >
> > > 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
> > >
> > >
> > > But some is not all.
> >
> > Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think
> > that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
> >
>
>
> The template specifies that D(D) is calling the same H(D,D)
> that invokes it. All instances conform to the template.
>
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> The above template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 8th element of H/D pairs 8 steps of D are simulated by H
> next step of the second recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 9th element of H/D pairs 9 steps of D are simulated by H
> this ends the second recursive simulation before line 03
>
>
> > The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no H
> > can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorrect.
> >
> > PROVEN.
>
You are solving POOP. Why do you changed the Halting Problem to POOP?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hd4i$flc0$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333820 |
On 5/8/24 10:30 AM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 08:21 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>
>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>
>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>
>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>
>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>
>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>
>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>
>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But some is not all.
>>>
>>> Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think
>>> that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The template specifies that D(D) is calling the same H(D,D)
>> that invokes it. All instances conform to the template.
>>
>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> The above template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>
>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>
>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>
>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>
>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>
>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>
>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> 8th element of H/D pairs 8 steps of D are simulated by H
>> next step of the second recursive simulation at line 02
>>
>> 9th element of H/D pairs 9 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this ends the second recursive simulation before line 03
>>
>>
>>> The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no H
>>> can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorrect.
>>>
>>> PROVEN.
>>
>
> You are solving POOP. Why do you changed the Halting Problem to POOP?
>
I am pointing out that olcott doesn't even solve his POOP as defined.
It was proven years ago that he wasn't solving Halting, which is why he
switched to the poorly defined Termination Analyzer with D "correctly"
simulated by H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h8r1$flc1$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333819 |
On 5/8/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>
>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>
>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>
>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>
>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>
>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>
>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>
>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>>
>>> But some is not all.
>>
>> Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think
>> that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
>>
>
>
> The template specifies that D(D) is calling the same H(D,D)
> that invokes it. All instances conform to the template.
Nope, just shows you don't understand the proof that you have spent
twenty years on, what a waste.
D calls the H that it is designed to refute.
Other deciders are allowed to decide it, and many can get the right value.
>
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
Yep, and it gets the WRONG VALUE that you then just LIE and claim you
can show that its value shluld be correct.
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> The above template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 8th element of H/D pairs 8 steps of D are simulated by H
> next step of the second recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 9th element of H/D pairs 9 steps of D are simulated by H
> this ends the second recursive simulation before line 03
>
And the Rth eleement of the H/D pairs simulates D all the way to the end
step, proving your "claim" to be false.
Your ignoring of this fact just proves your stupidity, and dishonesty.
The fact that you won't make the promise to stop if you are wrong about
your claim that I haven't proven it, just shows that you admit you might
be wrong, but will still make the uncondition assertion, knowing it
might be a lie.
>
>> The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no
>> H can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is
>> incorrect.
>>
>> PROVEN.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web