Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact

On 6/5/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:

At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that
the above link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly
simulated by HH.

What are you asking for a counter example of?
>

The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt to
simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot
possibly prove otherwise.

>
No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0.
>

In other words you have always known that I am correct that DD
correctly simulated by HH CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT and yet still try to
get away with pure bluster.
>

You are talking in circles and keep on changing topics, possible
because you just don't know what you are talking about, or possible,
your medication has made your brain too fuzzy.

*It is a proven fact that directly executed DD(DD) has*
*different behavior than DD correctly simulated by HH*