Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 20:47:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v2u4cc$349br$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@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>
 <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 03:47:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3286395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XmHrzSnClTDp55EnwPszS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8WFzAs8AV9nGg2ICsK+Ybb9AWZU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5385

On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 

When we have endless deflection on step one five more steps are not
going to help. It turns out that there are six steps.

When you tried to point out an error on step one it was merely a false
assumption on your part. This is way better than you simply lied.

That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is
TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING.

I have told my close friends about you. The one good part is that
your reviews greatly improved the quality of my words. I told them
that too.

TRY AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A MERE TROLL AND SHOW
AN ERROR WITH STEP ONE OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY ERROR.

*IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*
*IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*
*IF YOU ARE A MERE TROLL I HAVE ALREADY STOPPED FEEDING THE TROLL*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer