Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:09:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v2u5ju$38795$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2qvar$1vblp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@dont-email.me> <v2r3r0$2h2l7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2r7cq$1vblq$10@i2pn2.org> <v2rpda$2nvot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2smub$22aq1$1@i2pn2.org> <v2t8o0$2vna0$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2t9tj$22aq1$5@i2pn2.org> <v2tajd$2vna0$6@dont-email.me>
 <v2tdre$22aq1$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tfms$30u1r$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2tgv2$22aq0$2@i2pn2.org> <v2th6a$319s1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tjpr$22aq1$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tk9i$31qgp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tkit$22aq0$6@i2pn2.org> <v2tl8b$31uo4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tm5d$22aq0$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tnr1$32e7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tp5n$22aq0$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tpdg$32me8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tptp$22aq1$13@i2pn2.org> <v2tq50$32r0d$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tqh7$22aq1$15@i2pn2.org> <v2tr68$32uto$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2trch$23vgp$1@i2pn2.org> <v2trts$331vq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tsub$23vgp$2@i2pn2.org> <v2u0o5$33mgp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org> <v2u4cc$349br$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2u5f4$23vgp$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 04:09:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3415333"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dBJelNpLOS7xLQTGr+TLY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZsjA3BGJoVCQl68L/XIhzDRAFfc=
In-Reply-To: <v2u5f4$23vgp$5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7352

On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A 
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A 
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A 
>>>>>>>>>> BASIS*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't 
>>>>>>>>> have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of 
>>>>>>>>> the terms that you are changing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is 
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is 
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is 
>>>>>>>> false*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being 
>>>>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic 
>>>>>>> works)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implications of your specifications are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF 
>>>>>> THIS POST
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
>>>> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps 
>>
>> When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not
>> going to help. It turns out that there are six steps.
> 
> It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications of 
> your definitions.
> 
>>
>> When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false
>> assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied.
> 
> No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule.
> 
>>
>> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is
>> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING.
> 
> Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean.
> 
> If you accept my implications, just say so.
> 
> If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef
> 
>>
>> I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that
>> your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them
>> that too.
>>
>> TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW
>> AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR.
> 
> I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a 
> stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the 
> definitions are agreed to.
> 
> I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it 
> doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is can 
> you actually prove it.
> 
> At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you 
> statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But 
> that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will 
> speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find no 
> counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter 
> example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so 
> you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis.
> 
>>
>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*
>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*
>> *IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*
>>
> 
> If you want, I can just say that my implications do apply and give my 
> answer conditioned on it, then if you want to disagree with that 
> inplication, that means we have go back to step 1.
> 
> IS that what you REALLY Want?
> 
> Is that what you want to agree to?

The Socratic method has very specific requirements that cannot be
circumvented with good results. It catches and tosses Trolls aside.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer