Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:15:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:15:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2938242"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2600
Lines: 47

On 3/22/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 
>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott 
>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if 
>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>
>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>
>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>
>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just your 
>> own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING of how 
>> logic works.
>>
> 
> *If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
> *That you agreed with this proves that it not true*
> 
> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>  >> never stops running.
>  >
>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>  > them won't be deciders...
> 
> I am using
> [Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
> You and Mike don't seem to understand this.
> 

Nope, you are just using inalid logic.

You think that Hs that abort and Hs that don't are exactly the same sort 
of thing, when they are not.

Thus, you prove your utter stupidity.