Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) ---
 Boilerplate Reply
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:01:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v52tul$307ee$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v52qat$jund$9@i2pn2.org> <v52s4l$2vlma$1@dont-email.me>
 <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 06:01:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3e479354f6c59f79625e93d556f5bfb";
	logging-data="3153358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lV12IMCRBtNVFa+Ee1url"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OUdzM7pzp2CwYEAC7vzJgmvYssA=
In-Reply-To: <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5718

On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated
>> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to
>> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address
>> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it*
>>
>> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell*
>>
> 
> It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider!
> 

That is the only definitive way to determine the
actual behavior that the finite string specifies.

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