Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:22:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fa44d9c8febaa7919fbb19dcea581908274b5f32@i2pn2.org>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me> <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
	<a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
	<veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
	<647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
	<vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
	<d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
	<veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
	<0280e32ff3acd1fff59f9637f14bf309150878b4@i2pn2.org>
	<veu4rl$3ct1e$1@dont-email.me>
	<00bf3eb3a01c08467b34e8d7e99ca3fa193aa531@i2pn2.org>
	<veuc3j$3e9cv$1@dont-email.me> <veue7n$1a01$1@news.muc.de>
	<veufr6$3f30f$1@dont-email.me>
	<31fed9bd45277332bcabc040d4b21de642356f63@i2pn2.org>
	<veukur$3ftj1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:22:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2698149"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3166
Lines: 33

Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:46:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/18/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:18:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/18/2024 2:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The existence of the check has an effect right from the start;
>>>>>> besides, it is true the first time it is executed.
>>>>> So maybe you have ADD too. You can't seem to pay attention when
>>>>> things are explained to you many different times several different
>>>>> ways.
>>>> What you call "explaining" is in actual fact the assertion of
>>>> falsehoods.  This is usually called lying.
>>>> The variable Root does indeed affect your program.
>>> *I never say that it didn't*
>> You said nothing at all. Productive communication would have included
>> an agreement and clarification.
>> 
>>> The "root" variable has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the correctness or
>>> completeness of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD until this DDD
>>> calls HHH(DDD).
>> DDD does nothing else but call HHH, and Root is part of HHH, so is
>> simulated the first time around.
> It is possible that I am not communicating this clearly enough
> The root variable cannot possibly have have any effect what-so-ever on
> the correctness of HHH emulating DDD or HHH emulating itself emulating
> DDD until the root variable tests true.
It has the effect of not aborting the simulation.
Apart from that, Root is true in the root invocation of HHH (duh).

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.