Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-19 13:37:53 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:

>
It is still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.
Which doesn't matter as nobody believes you anyway.
>

>
It is dishonest to dismiss my reasoning out-of-hand without
finding an actual error.

 So many of your errors have been found and analyzed that one more
or less makes no difference.
 

False assumptions on your part do not actually count as errors on my part.

For my first three examples that have no input H0 is a termination
analyzer.

 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.

For my next example that has an input there is no existing
term of the art that exactly fits besides halt decider with a limited
domain or partial halt decider.

 The latter is better.
 

This is too confusing to my software engineer reviewers.

 The cause of confusion is that you use common words in a way that
is not compatible with their common meanings.

I am using the term: termination analyzer exactly correctly for the
first three inputs. I am targeting software engineers because they are
consistently more rational.

If one cannot trust
that you know what your words mean one cannot understand what you
are trying to say.
 

In other words your naysayer bias is holding you back from
understanding me. Bias is a systematic error.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer