Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 21:46:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3e479354f6c59f79625e93d556f5bfb"; logging-data="3130686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+A8Tl+tq4LcfIDQaKdzq6U" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wtqiMtWJ31OxQpwAZ7mA8dzEbgo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4553 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! _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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer