Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:48:43 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <v29mgr$2mfq1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org> <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org> <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me> <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org> <v1lvuo$1i47i$1@dont-email.me> <v1m1bf$lbo5$4@i2pn2.org> <v1m2hc$1ijhr$1@dont-email.me> <v1m31m$lbo4$1@i2pn2.org> <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org> <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org> <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me> <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me> <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me> <v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me> <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me> <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me> <v20cf4$11h4n$3@i2pn2.org> <v20ect$bki0$1@dont-email.me> <v22j90$u8vi$4@dont-email.me> <v24iou$1fskq$1@dont-email.me> <v2592p$1kspo$1@dont-email.me> <v280hv$298tt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 09:48:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="09f5db4735dcda801e35839cc47e3f1d";
	logging-data="2834241"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18A5xEj6gKFNV7dCccXEFTF"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F0knrSR2NvAQT5lTfW++hFPhhlU=
Bytes: 2583

On 2024-05-17 16:27:41 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/17/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-16 15:34:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>> Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
>>> counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
>>> (and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
>>> disregard for the truth.
>> 
>> No, it does not. A different kind of proof is sufficient to meet
>> the standard, and even a good justification of another kind.
>> 
> 
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*
> *I call bullshit on your notion of proof*

The law does not care about my notion, or yours.

-- 
Mikko