Re: HHH(DDD)==0

On 10/8/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
 > Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
 > someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
 > Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
 > incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
 > must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
 > that Peter is running rings around you.
 I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
    DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
   exist never returns
    thus each of the directly executed  HHH emulators that does
   return 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior.

So, you don't understand that calling a false statement true is just proof of being a liar.
First, as explained, the meaning of the sentence clearly is talking about the behavior of DDD, which is the behavior of it executed, which you yourself have prove will halt if HHH(DDD) returns an answer.
Andl even if we let you say that your first claim is correct about the PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, then the second doesn't follow, as nothing was shown to be non-terminating, as that phrase applies to the behavior of a MACHINE/PROGRAM, not the partial emulation of one, so the fact that a partial emulation didn't reach an end doesn't show non-termination.
The only non-terminating machines in view in your system are the ones associated with the HHH(DDD) that never aborts, and those are not halt deciders.
And the only way that the HHH(DDD) that returns 0 can say its input is that DDD is if you blantently ignore the fact that to even be a program, the definition of DDD *MUST* include the code that it calls, so it includes that the DDD that calls that HHH that returns 0, is also itself calling that same HHH, not some other one, and thus your argument is based on LYING about what is happening her.
So, you are just showing that
PPPP   EEEEE  TTTTT  EEEEE  RRRR
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
P   P  E        T    E      R   R
PPPP   EEEEE    T    EEEEE  RRRR
P      E        T    E      R R
P      E        T    E      R  R
P      EEEEE    T    EEEEE  R   R
  OOO   L       CCC    OOO   TTTTT  TTTTT
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C      O   O    T      T
O   O  L      C   C  O   O    T      T
  OOO   LLLLL   CCC    OOO     T      T
L     IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E      S   S
L       I    E      S
L       I    EEEEE   SSS
L       I    E          S
L       I    E      S   S
LLLLL IIIII  EEEEE   SSS
AND THINKS IT IS OK

 He summed you up pretty well:
On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
 > *Meanwhile, you surely noticed*
 > *that Peter is running rings around you*
 

Yep, you are running rings around me, and not getting anywhere because you have no where to get to.
You are just a failure, a DOOMED liar that has been totally exposed.
You are just proving that you have no idea what you are talking about, and aren't even trying to defend your statements as having any basis of truth.
At least Trump, the election deniers, and the climate change deniers will work to find evidence for their position.
You are just admitting, by just repeating the same lies, that you have nothing to actually justify your claims except your own conviction that it must be true.
Calling a disproven statement "self-evidently true" is just an admission that you are just wrong.