Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06

On 5/25/24 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:

*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*

>
No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>
After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>

>
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>

>
They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the terms that you are changing.
>

>
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*

>
Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>
(Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
>
>
The implications of your specifications are:
>
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>

>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>
After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do intend for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, then there are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will need to be met.
>
Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer for same input.
>
You then need to show that you can actually make such a machine.
>

>

2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status.
>

>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>
After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating the acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition definition includes the additional property that if the instruction wasn't a terminal instruction of the program, that the next instruction MUST be simulated too.
>

>

3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the concept of the behavior of a machine, and
>

>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line
>

>

4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in the Linz or Sipser proofs.
>

>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line
>

>
*I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
*STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
>

>
And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them.
>
You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after if you get what you want.
>

 WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I
AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN.

And I will continue to pin you down on the implications of your defininitions.

 WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I
AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN.
 WHEN I MAKE SURE TO PIN YOU DOWN YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOW THAT I
AM MISTAKEN SO I WILL CONTINUE TO INSIST ON PINNING YOU DOWN.
 It has already been proven that tolerating
*STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
cannot possibly ever get anywhere.

Ir ian't a strawman, it is pointing out FACTS about your definitions.

 *THIS NEW POLICY MAKES TROLLING ME UTTERLY IMPOTENT*
Thus if trolling me is your only intent then you will
only get boilerplate replies from me.
 

No, MY new policy seems to make YOU UTTERLY IMPOTENT, as you are the one on the clock.
YOu can accept the limitations now, or they get put to you on the later step when you try to do what was blocked, and you have no "agreement" to lie about to try to prop up your lies.
The implications of your specifications are:
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status.
3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the concept of the behavior of a machine, and
4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in the Linz or Sipser proofs.