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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D)
 is correct
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:38:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uu6uaa$3eioh$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <uu1qje$3106v$1@dont-email.me> <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me> <uu2eob$374vo$2@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2g1k$360p2$2@dont-email.me> <uu2hpe$374vo$11@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2jp1$36okm$2@dont-email.me> <uu2lfu$374vo$15@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2n0q$37bas$4@dont-email.me> <uu2o02$374vn$9@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2och$37bas$8@dont-email.me> <uu3m7n$3ajo2$3@i2pn2.org>
 <uu402f$3ktin$1@dont-email.me> <uu50ms$3ca7i$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uu57db$3tt5t$9@dont-email.me> <uu58kq$3ca7j$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uu5cri$2tti$1@dont-email.me> <uu6ep7$3dq4u$3@i2pn2.org>
 <uu6o1c$ceq1$2@dont-email.me> <uu6s7i$3eioh$12@i2pn2.org>
 <uu6spm$dit0$3@dont-email.me> <uu6tge$3eioi$5@i2pn2.org>
 <uu6to7$dit0$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:38:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3623697"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu6to7$dit0$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4655
Lines: 96

On 3/29/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/29/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2024 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, but as you have admitted, the behavior of that machine 
>>>>>>>>>> code CHANGES depending on what is at the location of H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of D simulated by any H that can possibly exist
>>>>>>>>> remains the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behavior of D CHANGES based on the H it attaches to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The behavior of D simulated by any H that can possibly exist
>>>>>>> remains the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Since you are using a "meaningless" term, it is just a 
>>>>>> non-truth bearer. Partial simulations do not reveal behavior, only 
>>>>>> complete simulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes and your same reasoning says that mathematical induction can't
>>>>> possibly work. No finite sequences of steps can every be extrapolated
>>>>> to an in finite number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say that?
>>>>
>>>> I guess you don't think all the Natural Numbers exist.
>>>>
>>>> You are just showing that you are using incorrect logic;
>>>>
>>>>> Are you trying to get away with saying that you simply do not
>>>>> "believe in" mathematical induction?
>>>>
>>>> You need to show that actual steps that PROVE your induction, which 
>>>> I don't think you actually know what they are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already know these steps as you have implicitly admitted when
>>> you repeatedly said that when no H(D,D) aborts its simulation then
>>> H(D,D) never halts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, since D changes behavior with a change of the definition of H.
>>
> 
> You know this is a lie yet say it anyway.

So, you think that a D that calls an H that loops forever has the same 
behavior as a D that calls an H that returns 0?

THAT is the LIE, that gets you to Revelations 21:8

> That would seem to fall under Revelations 21:8.
> D has the exact same behavior when simulated by any H.

Nope.

Just shows that any H that aborts is simulation doesn't do a "Correct 
Simulaiton" that shows behavior.

THAT is another of your great lies.

> 
>> That statement is not applicable.
>>
>> The behavior of D for ANY other H has no bearing on the behavior of D 
>> with this H.
>>
>> To claim otherwise is just a LIE.
> 
> I am not and never have been intentionally saying anything
> that is false.
> 

If that it true, then you are mentally a MORON.

How is not making a copy of H to put into H_Hat following the 
instructions of Linz exactly?

Or, it is just you don't know the meaning of "Truth"?

Is that how you got of the child porn charges? You were mentally 
incompetent?