Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive simulation

all the time it is simulated even when an infinite number of steps
are simulated.

>
So, are you admitting that HH just gets stuck and doesn't answer when asked HH(DD,DD)?
>

 Every DD correctly simulated by any HH remains stuck in recursive simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.

So? Since you definition of "Correct Simulation" is non-canonical, that doesn't mean anything.
And you still haven't defined what you mean by this DD correctly simulated by HH, and thus which why you have lied abut the 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
If DD is a template, then you can't simulate DD past the call HH instruction and thus don't get anywhere near to infinity.
If DD is a instance of the template, then each instance is only simulated for exactly on value of number of steps, so you are not talking about the same thing in the two parts of your statement and thus are making a type error.

 As I have repeatedly told you hundreds of times DD correctly
simulated by pure simulator HH never gets past its own line 03
and this HH does not halt.

So, when are you going to answer the question of what you mean by that to make it clear which part of your claim is the lie?

 Also DD correctly simulated by pure function HH never gets past
its own line 03 and THIS HH DOES HALT.

And who cares about the fact that DD didn't halt before its simulation was aborted?

 If you really can't remember that from one post to the next I suggest
that you print that out so that you can see it immediately before making
any reply.
 

Maybe you should answer the question put before you and not just be arguing with yourself.
Repeating non-responsive replies just shows that you don't know how to continue the discussion with an actual answer, because you. know you have been caught in a lie.