| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2u5ju$38795$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:09:02 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 Message-ID: <v2u5ju$38795$1@dont-email.me> References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@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> <v2u4cc$349br$1@dont-email.me> <v2u5f4$23vgp$5@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 04:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3415333"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dBJelNpLOS7xLQTGr+TLY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZsjA3BGJoVCQl68L/XIhzDRAFfc= In-Reply-To: <v2u5f4$23vgp$5@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7352 On 5/25/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/25/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > It isn't a deflection to fully define and understand the implications of > your definitions. > >> >> 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. > > No, it was that you hadn't actually DEFINED your rule. > >> >> That you have not even tried to point out any error on step one is >> TAKEN AS YOU GOT NOTHING. > > Except that I have pointed out the errors in what you THINK you mean. > > If you accept my implications, just say so. > > If you don't then it needs to be handled NOW bef > >> >> 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. > > I haven't spent time thinking about the statement enough to make a > stateent one way of the other, because I see it as pointless until the > definitions are agreed to. > > I will point out again, that your form of proof is just invalid, as it > doesn't matter who agrees with your statement as likely true, it is can > you actually prove it. > > At best, if people are honest, they might be able to say that you > statement "seems" true, and they can't think of a problem with it. But > that isn't PROOF. I suspect that when we get to the point when I will > speak, it will either be a counter example or a statement that I find no > counter example with a basic search. Lack of evidence of a counter > example is not evidence of the non-existance of a counter-example, so > you will have no proof, at best you might have a thesis. > >> >> *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* >> > > If you want, I can just say that my implications do apply and give my > answer conditioned on it, then if you want to disagree with that > inplication, that means we have go back to step 1. > > IS that what you REALLY Want? > > Is that what you want to agree to? The Socratic method has very specific requirements that cannot be circumvented with good results. It catches and tosses Trolls aside. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer