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: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:30:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:30:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3273011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3909
Lines: 88

On 7/14/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/14/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if 
>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if HHH does abort 
>>>
>>> int x = 5;
>>> int y = 3;
>>> if (x > y) // *before abort*
>>> {
>>>    printf("x > y is necessarily true\n");
>>>    y = 2 * x;  // *after abort*
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Red Hering, showin your utter stupidity.
>>
> 
> In other words giving up on you was the correct thing
> to do. You have proven to be incorrigible when you
> consistently deny tautologies.
> 

No, you dont have tautologies, but LIE based on changing the meaning of 
words.

You seem to think that programs cam actually CHOOSE what they will do 
and can change that based on "something". That just shows your utter 
ignorance of what you are talking about.

You have admitted that you are considering the input to HHH to be 
something that doesn't actually meet the definition of a program, again, 
showing you utter stupidity.

You have claimed "verified facts" that you can not show that they are 
actually true, and that just seems to mean something you think must be true.

You have admitted that you logic is just nonsense by claiming to have a 
"Diagonalization Proof" that shows that Godel is incorrect, and then 
when asked for that proof you said that Diagonaization proof were nonsense.