Re: point by point --- in our head

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:53:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 2:19 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
its own rules.

WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?

You have proven that you don't care.

And nothing comes of it.

It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD,

A simulation of a limited number of instructions, or one that is
aborted,
or incomplete, does not show the same behaviour, by virtue of all the
following instructions that were not simulated. Nobody was disputing
the simulation of the instructions themselves; rather which
instructions were or were not simulated.
 

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   OutputString("I never make it here!\n");
}
In other words you can't understand the above example.

Fuck your reading comprehension. How did you even make that jump?
If you abort simulating that function, your "simulator" halts,
UNLIKE the original. That is a difference.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.