Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:That is counter-factual and over-your-head.On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott:>On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:>void DDD()>
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.
It seems very difficult for you to read.
We clearly stated that the challenge is improper.
Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic
assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting
reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ???
No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a proof that square circles exist.
>>>
Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to
show this mistake is DISHONEST.
>
Indeed, but irrelevant,
That alternative is that you are dishonest.
When you claim that I am wrong and have
no ability to show how and where I am wrong
this would seem to make you a liar.
>
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up the simulation.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.