Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

 

Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.

 

I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.

 
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
 

I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people
that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace
through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding
none.

You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature.
We found many errors.

If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong yet fail to
point out any mistake because there are no mistakes this will only
convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient technical competence.

That "assumption" is pretty well founded if you believe CS. The mistakes
are still there even if you can't see them. There is only one gullible
fool here.

--
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim