Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 18:15:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0235a31986be76aa82e007536e3aa6cb3553310c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7hav7$3muu0$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:15:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938153"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7hav7$3muu0$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2864
Lines: 49

On 7/20/24 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>
>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>
>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>> learning at all.
>>
>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> 
> So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
> pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
> 
> 

Since it isn't a fact that the behavior of DDD will never reach that 
point for ALL DDD, since it will for any DDD built on an  HHH that 
aborts its emulaiton and returns (as requiremd to be a decider).

So, you are just proved to be a LIAR.

Yes, the emulation by HHH doesn't get to that point, but that just shows 
your ignorance about the difference between the actual program and its 
PARTIAL emulation, which highlights your lack of understanding of the 
differece between fact and knowledge, which shows that you are 
unqualified to talk about logic, or program theory,