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

Op 05.jun.2024 om 15:54 schreef olcott:

On 6/5/2024 3:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jun.2024 om 23:53 schreef olcott:

https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>
It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
their face.
>
>

>
By changing definitions you can prove many things.
>

 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,4) cannot correctly return the sum of 5 + 6.
 H(D,D) cannot possibly return the halt status of D(D) because
D calls H in recursive simulation thus forcing the behavior of
D correctly simulated by H to be different than the behavior of
the directly executed D(D).
 Requiring H(D,D) to return the halt status of D(D) is exactly
the same as requiring sum(3,4) to return the sum of 5 + 6.
 *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
 No one has ever shown otherwise all that anyone has ever provided
is dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
 

Since you deleted most of what I said, I assume that don't know how to refute it. Apparently you are unable to change your dogma's, even when confronted with facts.