Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 18:23:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 84 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 01:23:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3246074"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RYP/oN6T3ha0P/b0gW/vC" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vY73C0BsSrLQNhLQ99G4asLAZwA= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5089 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 > 2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of > the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status. > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the > concept of the behavior of a machine, and > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST > 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in > the Linz or Sipser proofs. > OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* > 5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone will > agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your lies. *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer