Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention

On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

 For some time at the beginning I continued because I was curious about the details of what PO had coded (his x86utm program), and I just enjoy mucking about with different code hence my curiosity. Also I have the white night syndrome I guess - but no illusions that I can help PO. Most of my early days on Usenet were spent on groups like alt.math.undergrad, where posters were typically students who were motivated to learn and so listened to what the regulars had to say. Compare that to sci.math which has almost no students, and instead has dozens of cranks whose aim is definitely /not/ to learn anything!
 If I post here these days it is generally for the possible benefit of others conversing with PO - e.g. perhaps it seems to me that weeks of time are being wasted /through some simple miscommunication/ with PO. I've been around longer than the current (relative) newcommers [not as long as you and Ben I think], so I have more context for what PO is trying to say,

 *Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*

  Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are just too stupid.
 

 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
 

 Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.