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
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
 --- in our head
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:57:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <144194c31aa90f6ac975fcefb07d0e15c34baea5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
 <be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me> <v9klf4$u594$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9la7f$113gd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 01:57:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2724235"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9la7f$113gd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2417
Lines: 30

On 8/15/24 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/15/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-15 02:03:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run, even 
>>>> if it never is,
>>>>
>>>
>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>> its own rules.
>>
>> The big mistake is yours where you violate the rules of computation
>> theory and honest discussion.
>>
> 
> It is at least the case that conventional halting
> problem proofs violate one of the rules of the theory
> of computation.
> 

And what rule is that?


You can't seem to quote it, and were it comes from.

All you can do is quote the rules YOU made up out of your zero-knowledge 
study of the field, which don't count.

Sorry, you have just made yourself totally stupid on this, and so stupid 
you can't see your own ignorance, which becomes the worse kind of stupid.