Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #134873
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? |
| Date | 2025-11-02 20:53 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10e95eq$2ja0u$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <10e8v22$2haaq$2@dont-email.me> <10e8vrn$2i14j$1@dont-email.me> <10e90be$2haaq$5@dont-email.me> <10e93qu$2iuni$1@dont-email.me> <10e949a$2it41$1@dont-email.me> |
On 11/2/2025 8:33 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H"
>>>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That part is clear. What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>> >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>> * C function
>>>>> * finite string
>>>>
>>>> D is a finite string
>>>
>>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>>
>
> The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite string D
> is.
>
You never heard of ASCII characters?
>>>> in the C programming
>>>> language that specifies a sequence of steps
>>>> and defines a C function.
>>>
>>> So you're claiming that finite string D is a description of C
>>> function D?
>>>
>>
>> No that is too vague. It is exactly what I said it is.
>
> And what exactly is vague about it?
>
The term "description" when applied in software
engineering has a different much more vague
meaning that machine description in theoretical
computer science.
>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>>>
>>>> H is something or other that can simulate
>>>> D and is callable from D.
>>>
>>> So it sounds like H is not well-defined.
>>
>> It is 100% perfectly and completely defined for
>> its specific purpose.
>
> "something or other" is the exact opposite of 100% perfectly and
> completely defined.
>
For the purposes of verifying this statement
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
It is 100% completely defined.
That you insist on knowing irrelevant
details such as that the C function is
encoded in ASCII proves that you are
not being honest.
>>
>>> Unless you can classify it as a C function, finite string, or
>>> algorithm, you claim will be dismissed out-of-hand as unclear.
>>>
>>
>> Yes because simulation might be construed as an
>> actual slap in the actual face and have nothing
>> to do with following the steps specified by the
>> C source code.
>>
>
> Then your statement is dismissed out-of-hand as unclear as you haven't
> defined whether "H" refers a C function, algorithm, finite string, or
> something else.
>
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound like a dead bullfrog?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Plonkers Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Plonkers Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 02:12 +0000
"duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 21:41 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 04:08 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 23:14 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 00:32 -0400
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:34 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-02 04:39 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 14:10 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:26 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 22:58 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:27 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 23:35 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:57 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 18:25 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:32 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 18:35 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:04 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:17 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:26 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:25 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:33 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:53 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:11 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:16 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:27 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 03:49 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:24 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 01:00 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:06 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 02:35 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:54 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:13 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:07 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:08 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:15 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:16 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:46 +0800
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:54 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:12 +0800
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 23:23 +0800
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:29 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:48 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:57 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:00 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:09 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:13 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:12 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 12:18 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:31 -0600
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 16:42 -0500
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 14:19 +0000
Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:42 -0600
Re: Plonkers Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:10 +0000
Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 07:47 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 22:19 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 10:32 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 00:42 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 11:18 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 01:33 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 12:00 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 02:13 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 12:30 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:09 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:16 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:23 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:27 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:34 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:37 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:52 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:57 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 04:01 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 14:31 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 05:22 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 15:32 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-03 22:38 +0000
Re: Addressing duffer-speak "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 15:25 -0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 19:40 +0800
Re: Addressing duffer-speak --- head games olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 06:31 -0600
Re: Addressing duffer-speak --- head games dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 07:53 -0500
csiph-web