On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you?
Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you?
Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
thus each of the directly executed HHH emulators that does
return 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior.
He summed you up pretty well:
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
*Meanwhile, you surely noticed*
*that Peter is running rings around you*
On 10/9/2024 5:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/8/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you? >>> > Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is >>> > incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You >>> > must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed >>> > that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
thus each of the directly executed HHH emulators that does
return 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior.
So, you don't understand that calling a false statement true is just
proof of being a liar.
First, as explained, the meaning of the sentence clearly is talking
about the behavior of DDD, which is the behavior of it executed, which
you yourself have prove will halt if HHH(DDD) returns an answer.
Andl even if we let you say that your first claim is correct about the
PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, then the second doesn't follow, as
nothing was shown to be non-terminating, as that phrase applies to the
behavior of a MACHINE/PROGRAM, not the partial emulation of one, so
the fact that a partial emulation didn't reach an end doesn't show
non- termination.
The only non-terminating machines in view in your system are the ones
associated with the HHH(DDD) that never aborts, and those are not halt
deciders.
And the only way that the HHH(DDD) that returns 0 can say its input is
that DDD is if you blantently ignore the fact that to even be a
program, the definition of DDD *MUST* include the code that it calls,
so it includes that the DDD that calls that HHH that returns 0, is
also itself calling that same HHH, not some other one, and thus your
argument is based on LYING about what is happening her.
So, you are just showing that
PPPP EEEEE TTTTT EEEEE RRRR
P P E T E R R
P P E T E R R
PPPP EEEEE T EEEEE RRRR
P E T E R R
P E T E R R
P EEEEE T EEEEE R R
OOO L CCC OOO TTTTT TTTTT
O O L C C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C C O O T T
OOO LLLLL CCC OOO T T
L IIIII EEEEE SSS
L I E S S
L I E S
L I EEEEE SSS
L I E S
L I E S S
LLLLL IIIII EEEEE SSS
AND THINKS IT IS OK
He summed you up pretty well:
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
*Meanwhile, you surely noticed*
*that Peter is running rings around you*
Yep, you are running rings around me, and not getting anywhere because
you have no where to get to.
You are just a failure, a DOOMED liar that has been totally exposed.
You are just proving that you have no idea what you are talking about,
and aren't even trying to defend your statements as having any basis
of truth.
At least Trump, the election deniers, and the climate change deniers
will work to find evidence for their position.
You are just admitting, by just repeating the same lies, that you have
nothing to actually justify your claims except your own conviction
that it must be true.
Calling a disproven statement "self-evidently true" is just an
admission that you are just wrong.
Everything that I said is true within the meaning of my words.
On 10/9/24 7:06 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion withwho is
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you? >>>> > Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone
incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You >>>> > must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed >>>> > that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
Thus additting that each of those DDD are different, and that HHH must
look at the exact DDD that calls it, which means that the HHH(DDD) that
it sees being called will do what it does.
On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/9/24 7:06 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion withwho is
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are >>>>> you?
Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone
incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? >>>>> Younoticed
must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely
that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
Thus additting that each of those DDD are different, and that HHH must
look at the exact DDD that calls it, which means that the HHH(DDD)
that it sees being called will do what it does.
That you simply aren't bright enough to recognize a recursive
invocation chain is not my mistake.
Your posts have the professional decorum of a small child having
a temper tantrum. (the parts that were snipped).
On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you? >>> > Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is >>> > incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You >>> > must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed >>> > that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.
On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/9/24 7:06 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you? >>>>> > Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed >>>>> > that Peter is running rings around you.
I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns
That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
Thus additting that each of those DDD are different, and that HHH must
look at the exact DDD that calls it, which means that the HHH(DDD) that
it sees being called will do what it does.
That you simply aren't bright enough to recognize a recursive
invocation chain is not my mistake.
Your posts have the professional decorum of a small child having
a temper tantrum. (the parts that were snipped).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:25:48 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,859 |
| Posted today: | 1 |