Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/24 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

>
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
>
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>
Thanks!
>

 So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
 

Since it isn't a fact that the behavior of DDD will never reach that point for ALL DDD, since it will for any DDD built on an  HHH that aborts its emulaiton and returns (as requiremd to be a decider).
So, you are just proved to be a LIAR.
Yes, the emulation by HHH doesn't get to that point, but that just shows your ignorance about the difference between the actual program and its PARTIAL emulation, which highlights your lack of understanding of the differece between fact and knowledge, which shows that you are unqualified to talk about logic, or program theory,