On 7/23/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/23/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/23/24 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
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.
What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?
In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?
What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"? In >>>> most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong,
*No as many as one person ever actually showed that*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design
requirement that HHH must itself halt.
and (a) is wrong because it says that DDD doesn't halt when it does.
When the halting problem is defined as providing the halt
status of an input that does the opposite of whatever the
value to decider reports then people that are not mindless
robots programmed to disagree understand that the whole problem
must be tossed out on its ass.
Every yes/no question that has no correct yes/no answer IS WRONG !!!
It is not freaking undecidable IT IS WRONG !!!
Except, as you seem to not understand, because you don't understand what
a program is, for EVERY ACTUAL PROGRAM, there is a correct answer, so
the problem is valid.
You are just so stupid that you think you can LIE TO YOURSELF about what
the probmlem actualy is, which just proves that you are nothing but an
ignorant pathological lying idiot that reckless ignores the truth so you
can believe your own lies.
The fact that you just can't understand this doesn't make everyone else
a mindless robot, it shows that you are no better than a mindless robot,
stuck in your infinite loop of broken logic.
Sorry, but you are just proving how totally STUPID you are.
The fact that it seems you CHOSE to be that stupid, is just a testament
to how dumb you are. YOu didn't study the field out of the fear that the teachings would "brainwash" you into believing lies, but all you did
what to brainwash yourself into mindlessly believing your own lies to
the point that you just can not think about what could be true.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)