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 22:18:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2u65n$23vgo$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v2u5ju$38795$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 02:18:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2227736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2u5ju$38795$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7987
Lines: 151

On 5/25/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

You do understand that the Socratic Method for a discussion has back and 
forth questioning.

Only as a TEACHING method is it one way, and I reject that you have 
anything to teach me.

YOU want to prove something to me. That is NOT the goal of the Socratic 
Method, so you are using a screwdriver to put in a nail.

So, agree to the implications, or work on trying to show that they don't 
actually apply, which likely means altering your definitions, since I 
pull those implications from the basics of Computability theory, that 
likely means theaking or better explaining what you mean.

Of course, since you are trying to prove the impossible, ultimately you 
are doomed to fail.