Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:23:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v2qihn$1vblq$2@i2pn2.org> <v2qrnf$2fesr$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2qvar$1vblp$2@i2pn2.org> <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2r3r0$2h2l7$1@dont-email.me> <v2r7cq$1vblq$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v2rpda$2nvot$1@dont-email.me> <v2smub$22aq1$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2t8o0$2vna0$3@dont-email.me> <v2t9tj$22aq1$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tajd$2vna0$6@dont-email.me> <v2tdre$22aq1$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tfms$30u1r$3@dont-email.me> <v2tgv2$22aq0$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2th6a$319s1$1@dont-email.me> <v2tjpr$22aq1$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tk9i$31qgp$1@dont-email.me> <v2tkit$22aq0$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tl8b$31uo4$2@dont-email.me> <v2tm5d$22aq0$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tnr1$32e7p$1@dont-email.me> <v2tp5n$22aq0$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tpdg$32me8$2@dont-email.me> <v2tptp$22aq1$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tq50$32r0d$2@dont-email.me> <v2tqh7$22aq1$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v2tr68$32uto$1@dont-email.me> <v2trch$23vgp$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2trts$331vq$1@dont-email.me> <v2tsub$23vgp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2u0o5$33mgp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 01:23:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2227737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2u0o5$33mgp$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4565
Lines: 67

On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have 
>>>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the 
>>>>>> terms that you are changing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>>>
>>>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being 
>>>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>>>>
>>>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The implications of your specifications are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
>>
>> Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>>
> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
> 
> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
> 
> I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
> STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
> 



Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps if you 
will not accept the limitations of your defintions, and we then get to 
look at your later steps and point out where you are changing your 
definitions.

If the steps work with agreement, they work without it.

Unless of course, the issue is that by putting them together, the 
inconsistencies are too obvious.

This is how most proofs are presented, as a single unified whole.