Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 2024-04-30 15:36:00 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/30/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 15:40:18 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/29/2024 10:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 14:26:59 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:
 

When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

 Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
insufficient or erronous.

 Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.

 Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct.
 

Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the
details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

 Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?

 I now have an airtight proof that I am correct.

 That does not matter unless you post a pointer to that proof (either
a web page or a publication).
 

 *That does not work*
At best people simply misinterpret what I say and then conclude
that I must be wrong based on their misinterpretation.

 That is unavoidable if your presentation is broken to separately
posted parts. Readers may miss some parts or read the parts in a
wrong order, which inevitably affects how they interpret it.
 

Here is the most updated version of my paper.
 There are single sentences in this paper that require long dialogues
to be fully understood.

 A paper should be written so that it can be understood without any
dialogue. If a dialogue is needed that indicates that the paper needs
an improvement.
 

 That is impossible. I tried to have it analyzed on that basis and then
people misconstrue a dozen different points at once and have no idea
what I am saying.

If it is impossible to say what you want to say then there is
no point to try.
However, one failure is not a proof of impossibility. Improve the
text and ask again.

*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 

 You should post a link to that page whenever you are talking about
anything explained on that page (unless, of course, you post a link
to a page that has a better explanation).
 

 When I do that people very carefully glance at a few words and
then leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong.
 The only way around that it to require people to go over my ideas
one at a time until we reach mutual agreement on each idea.

I don't think that is the way. You have already tried so many times
that if that could work it would have worked already.
--
Mikko