On 8/9/25 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2025 7:33 PM, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 08:26 +0800, wij wrote:
olcott has always changed his POO Problem 'silently' from
H(D)=0,1,both,...
This time, HHH(DD)==0 is correct is just another circle (run out of
option)
Each change takes about a coupe of months, silently.
The point is that each time the new answer contradicts the previous one. >>> He had to lie. So, be warned, you are debating with a liar.
I cannot search the long history. The following is a post just now,
provided
for convenience for future readers.
On 8/9/2025 6:12 PM, dbush wrote:
On 8/9/2025 7:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, olcott wrote:
Until you bother to put in the effort to understand
that the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH
is different than the behavior of the directly executed
DD() you will not be able to begin to understand the
next step of my proof.
Since your prerequisite is manifestly absurd, I don't see anyone
understanding your proof any time soon.
He has admitted in the past
Everything that I said prior to one week ago has
been deprecated.
So, be prepared, olcott can say the same thing again.
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
And yet you provide the code that you claim does it.
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
I did say that if an input can to the opposite of
whatever its halt decider decides that this would
prove the halting problem proofs are correct.
And since DD does that, it is proved.
If you can't make an input that is a representation of that input, you
are just showing that your system is weaker than Turing Machine,
Or that you think UTMs doesn't actually exist, at which point you lose
the ability to use "correct simulaition" as a substitute for the
behavior of the machine represented.
And, since x86 processors are really just chips built with a hardware
UTM, you think that your computer can't actually run programs correctly.
Sorry, you are just showing how stupid you are.
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
And then present the machine that does it.
To people hardly paying any attention at all this might
have seemed that I was admitting that I am wrong.
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
*I also said that no such input can possibly exist*
And then present the machine that does it.
Thus showing you are just a stupid liar.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)