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
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) ---
 Boilerplate Reply
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:59:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v52qat$jund$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me> <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me> <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me> <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me> <v4ju8f$222a$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4k1m4$3f99u$1@dont-email.me> <v4k4mt$3fnqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4maeo$3vv3f$1@dont-email.me> <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me> <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me> <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v52mil$jund$6@i2pn2.org> <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v52p32$jund$7@i2pn2.org> <v52pht$2vh9u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:59:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="654061"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v52pht$2vh9u$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5549
Lines: 98

On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe.
>>>>>>> It is not about belief.
>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot 
>>>>>> present
>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
>>>>>> reasoning is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
>>>>> for an error and finding none.
>>>>
>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong
>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes
>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient
>>>>> technical competence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the
>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong.
>>>
>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God*
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped"
>>
>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider 
>> are supposed to use, as
>>
> 
> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly
> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own
> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT!


No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your 
POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is defined 
by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem BACKWARDS, like 
most of your logic.

The question is CAN you build a decider to generate the defined mapping. 
No one is interested in the question of can you build a finite machine 
to compute the mapping that is generated by known finite steps.

Of course, for a logical-kindergartner like you maybe that would be a 
worth-will project to learn what computations are.

The halting mapping is determined by the DIRECT EXECUTION, as that is 
the DEFINITION.

To claim otherwise, just shows you to be a heretical LIAR, that has been 
cast out into the hell of illogical.


> 
> _DDD()
> [00002093] 55               push ebp
> [00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
> [00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
> [0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
> [000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
> [000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
> [000020a4] c3               ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
> 
> Maybe I need to make that my boilerplate reply to
> everything that you ever say about anything until
> you admit that you are wrong.
> 

And just prove that you don't understand what you are talking about?

Of course, you have spent the last 20 years proving that.

I am sure tht a special room is being prepared for you to have you go 
over and over and over your own circular arguments for eternity.