Path: ...!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 19:12:23 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 121 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 02:12:24 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3259196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j7SkEMAEt4C6M9wddKywp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hX+nJh4KxuKMMrPIgME502DCz2c= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6629 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. > > After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do intend > for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, then there > are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will need to be met. > > Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer > for same input. > > You then need to show that you can actually make such a machine. > >> >>> 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 > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line. > > After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating the > acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition definition > includes the additional property that if the instruction wasn't a > terminal instruction of the program, that the next instruction MUST be > simulated too. > >> >>> 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 > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > >> >>> 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 > > Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line > >> >> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE* >> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* >> > > And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down > the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them. > > You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a > reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, > because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after if > you get what you want. > WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN. It has already been proven that tolerating *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS* cannot possibly ever get anywhere. *THIS NEW POLICY MAKES TROLLING ME UTTERLY IMPOTENT* Thus if trolling me is your only intent then you will only get boilerplate replies from me. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer