Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 --- Dishonest?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:03:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <v2u5a0$349br$2@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 04:03:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3286395"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DiA3yN87b4xq35SH649zJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNQuT0iGLT16+1zcd+uIuo493JE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5194

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

*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*

*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*

*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*

*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*

*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*

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