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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:19:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f7d8c0331ec8ccd5a2515e1fe8a6f2698996c146@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee9d41d5f1c2a8dd8ff44d3ddeee20d2c3bcccc1@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
 <voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
 <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
 <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:19:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="302815"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4029
Lines: 52

Continuing to direct follow-ups, and then adding back in your own 
replies can be considered abusive posting.

It is a sign that you understand that your arguments are weak and do not 
stand the test of scrutiny. It also might rise to the level of a TOS 
violation, which could cost you the ability to post.

On 2/15/25 10:25 PM, olcott wrote to comp.lang.c comp.lang.c++, 
comp.ak.philosophy:
> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that
>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I
>>>>>>> will point out the error.
>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
>> Yes, please shut up.
>>
>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>>
> 
> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
> 
> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
>