On 7/22/2024 1:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
[ .... ]
Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I
will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH >>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read. All but >>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong. >>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success. Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract
reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
Thanks!
Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.
[ .... ]
Your "proof" is no such thing. It makes wild assertions, and doesn't
start from that which is acknowledged to be true.
Every X has property Y or not, there is no inbetween.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
(a) At least one HHH (of the recursive chain) aborts.
(b) No HHH ever aborts.
Because HHH must halt (b) is wrong.
It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted to
prevent the non-termination of the simulating termination
analyzer does specify non-terminating behavior or it would
never need to aborted.
When I say that all black cats are cats and anyone disagrees
then we know who is lying.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 147:25:16 |
Calls: | 10,383 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 14,054 |
D/L today: |
2 files (1,861K bytes) |
Messages: | 6,417,730 |