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 --- Dishonest?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 22:25:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2u6if$23vgo$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v2u5a0$349br$2@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 02:25:19 -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: <v2u5a0$349br$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5966
Lines: 100

On 5/25/24 10:03 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
> 
> *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*
> 

If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is 
proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical 
pathologocial lying idiot.


As I said, your definitions, if you reject the implications, are 
inconsistant and need to have further restrictions implied, which makes 
your existing H not meet your (adjusted) definitions,

Of course, the problem is that you just don't have the background to 
understand any of this.

The ONLY reason I see for you to be resisting clearing up the 
implications, is that you KNOW that doing so will break your plan to try 
to slyly change the definitions in later steps to claim that the 
implications are not there.

That, or your whole logic is just shown to be totally wrong because you 
didn't know what you were doing (which is likely the case too).