Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 22:19:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2u68d$23vgo$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <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>
<v2u61m$388je$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 02:19:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2227736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2u61m$388je$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7019
Lines: 134
On 5/25/24 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> Right and the above might not actually be {infinite recursion}
> it might really be a dead bird in a bush.
>
Red Herring.
I thought you said you were avoiding strawmen, so Why are you making
them yourself.
I guess you are just proving you are just a Hypocrite, as well as a
pathological liar.