| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<5c71895549b28200c94b213233f8fed377ea0f56@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: HHH(DDD)==0 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 07:46:43 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <5c71895549b28200c94b213233f8fed377ea0f56@i2pn2.org> References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <ve1r9p$1t0bn$1@dont-email.me> <ade7b09486ca9de753a35f88aa4540c0233df3dd@i2pn2.org> <ve2038$1tdjm$1@dont-email.me> <56b830364cf651238ea19749c6dda753427cf8fb@i2pn2.org> <ve21rv$1tm6t$1@dont-email.me> <4ead3c7dcd0cb13a6c655716f106bb836aa4bc47@i2pn2.org> <ve39fd$26g97$1@dont-email.me> <030f6c2bf84dc1776787d597adcf5c2015cc861d@i2pn2.org> <ve3e3r$26g97$4@dont-email.me> <8c474bc7aee03e8eedb712f48c4b39c1c9e88a7b@i2pn2.org> <ve3gb8$27ad7$1@dont-email.me> <243d02f2d3397e7f681ebdad2e9b7d8a346bb75c@i2pn2.org> <ve405a$29pn2$1@dont-email.me> <a8e26927fd1751a23d0e4fc4e68a912628bd63da@i2pn2.org> <ve473a$2afp6$1@dont-email.me> <37c291e02299479ab8b55256f3744fe0ba48f6db@i2pn2.org> <ve4e64$2bp17$1@dont-email.me> <c5fc13c930680ba5f64f34e9a1c918c8c40e3530@i2pn2.org> <ve4q83$2ckv6$2@dont-email.me> <53d3ed2cfd983f3b895f6509020bcbe98e86d3e6@i2pn2.org> <ve4ubu$2h81c$1@dont-email.me> <fb1edb9c4639745db33225e5a04a71255a3972c2@i2pn2.org> <ve5odm$2khlq$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:46:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1248584"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <ve5odm$2khlq$3@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7304 Lines: 140 On 10/9/24 7:11 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/9/2024 5:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/8/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>> > Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with >>> > someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you? >>> > Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is >>> > incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You >>> > must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed >>> > that Peter is running rings around you. >>> >>> I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth: >>> >>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>> exist never returns >>> >>> thus each of the directly executed HHH emulators that does >>> return 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior. >> >> So, you don't understand that calling a false statement true is just >> proof of being a liar. >> >> First, as explained, the meaning of the sentence clearly is talking >> about the behavior of DDD, which is the behavior of it executed, which >> you yourself have prove will halt if HHH(DDD) returns an answer. >> >> Andl even if we let you say that your first claim is correct about the >> PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, then the second doesn't follow, as >> nothing was shown to be non-terminating, as that phrase applies to the >> behavior of a MACHINE/PROGRAM, not the partial emulation of one, so >> the fact that a partial emulation didn't reach an end doesn't show >> non- termination. >> >> The only non-terminating machines in view in your system are the ones >> associated with the HHH(DDD) that never aborts, and those are not halt >> deciders. >> >> And the only way that the HHH(DDD) that returns 0 can say its input is >> that DDD is if you blantently ignore the fact that to even be a >> program, the definition of DDD *MUST* include the code that it calls, >> so it includes that the DDD that calls that HHH that returns 0, is >> also itself calling that same HHH, not some other one, and thus your >> argument is based on LYING about what is happening her. >> >> So, you are just showing that >> >> PPPP EEEEE TTTTT EEEEE RRRR >> P P E T E R R >> P P E T E R R >> PPPP EEEEE T EEEEE RRRR >> P E T E R R >> P E T E R R >> P EEEEE T EEEEE R R >> >> >> OOO L CCC OOO TTTTT TTTTT >> O O L C C O O T T >> O O L C O O T T >> O O L C O O T T >> O O L C O O T T >> O O L C C O O T T >> OOO LLLLL CCC OOO T T >> >> >> L IIIII EEEEE SSS >> L I E S S >> L I E S >> L I EEEEE SSS >> L I E S >> L I E S S >> LLLLL IIIII EEEEE SSS >> >> >> AND THINKS IT IS OK >> >>> >>> He summed you up pretty well: >>> On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>> > *Meanwhile, you surely noticed* >>> > *that Peter is running rings around you* >>> >> >> Yep, you are running rings around me, and not getting anywhere because >> you have no where to get to. >> >> You are just a failure, a DOOMED liar that has been totally exposed. >> >> You are just proving that you have no idea what you are talking about, >> and aren't even trying to defend your statements as having any basis >> of truth. >> >> At least Trump, the election deniers, and the climate change deniers >> will work to find evidence for their position. >> >> You are just admitting, by just repeating the same lies, that you have >> nothing to actually justify your claims except your own conviction >> that it must be true. >> >> Calling a disproven statement "self-evidently true" is just an >> admission that you are just wrong. >> >> > > Everything that I said is true within the meaning of my words. > No, everything you have said is a LIE as has been explained. You are not a source of truth, as has been proven, and thus you are just proving youself to be an idiot. You are just showing that PPPP EEEEE TTTTT EEEEE RRRR P P E T E R R P P E T E R R PPPP EEEEE T EEEEE RRRR P E T E R R P E T E R R P EEEEE T EEEEE R R OOO L CCC OOO TTTTT TTTTT O O L C C O O T T O O L C O O T T O O L C O O T T O O L C O O T T O O L C C O O T T OOO LLLLL CCC OOO T T L IIIII EEEEE SSS L I E S S L I E S L I EEEEE SSS L I E S L I E S S LLLLL IIIII EEEEE SSS AND THINKS IT IS OK