Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 19:27:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f9fde8c194dab6da6938a66cacce3d01e08e9df6@i2pn2.org>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me>
 <9af78257f75aa43a76d4b75e226bf92aeaf62463@i2pn2.org>
 <100ngbr$3hg1k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 23:57:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1514745"; 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: <100ngbr$3hg1k$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/22/25 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2025 1:52 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 21 May 2025 18:14:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D that can ACTUALLY DO
>>> the opposite of whatever value that H returns making it impossible for H
>>> to decide D.
>> No, the proof assumes there is a *decider* and then shows exactly *how*
>> to construct a counterexample.
>>
> 
> Yet no one ever bothers to notice that
> this counter-example input cannot possibly
> actually do the opposite of whatever value
> that its decider returns.
> 


WHy Not?

After all, the input represents a PROGRAM, and that program does the 
opposite.

Only by LYING that the behaivor is what the PARTIAL simulation done by 
the decder does determines what the input does gives you your results.

Thus, all you have done is proven you are just a stupid liar.