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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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 !!!
On 5/8/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
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.
On 5/8/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/8/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/8/2024 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
*I am not referring to anything besides this*
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, as I described how to make an H that correctly simulates
the input to the final state.
*As always ONLY BY THE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION*
*As always ONLY BY THE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION*
*As always ONLY BY THE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION*
*As always ONLY BY THE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION*
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?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:54:46 |
| Calls: | 9,775 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,186,607 |