Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away
 denying tautologies
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:35:21 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v7nq09$145ge$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7m0af$n73h$2@dont-email.me>
 <v7m8lm$25j9$1@news.muc.de> <v7mdpd$pi02$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 10:35:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="750343008117602c3df088561f270b09";
	logging-data="1185294"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZVtk5mFyLHiV2aGPvyRlv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mEXOiwHPWtcjSf3HkIGzk7ipbrU=
In-Reply-To: <v7mdpd$pi02$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4047

Op 22.jul.2024 om 22:00 schreef olcott:
> On 7/22/2024 1:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I 
>>>>> will
>>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>
>>>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
>>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>
>>>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
>>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract 
>>>> reasoning,
>>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>>>> learning at all.
>>
>>>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
>>> mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>> Your "proof" is no such thing.  It makes wild assertions, and doesn't
>> start from that which is acknowledged to be true.
>>
> 
> Every X has property Y or not, there is no inbetween.

But if X does not exists, it makes no sense to argue about property Y of X.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> (a) At least one HHH (of the recursive chain) aborts.
> (b) No HHH ever aborts.
> 
> Because HHH must halt (b) is wrong.

And because (a) causes an incomplete and therefore incorrect simulation, 
(a) is wrong.

HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
HHH that correctly simulates itself is an empty set. No discussion is 
needed about the properties of such an HHH.

> 
> It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted to
> prevent the non-termination of the simulating termination
> analyzer does specify non-terminating behavior or it would
> never need to aborted.

It is also a truism that the HHH that aborts aborts the simulation of 
itself one cycle too soon, making the simulation incomplete and 
therefore incorrect.
> 
> When I say that all black cats are cats and anyone disagrees
> then we know who is lying.

But when you conclude that therefore all dogs must be black, your logic 
fails.

> 

When I say that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly and anyone 
disagrees, we know who does not tell the truth.
In your words it would be a tautology: HHH cannot possibly simulate 
itself correctly.