Re: HHH(DDD)==0

On 10/9/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/9/24 7:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:
>

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

>
That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
>

An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.

>
Thus additting that each of those DDD are different, and that HHH must look at the exact DDD that calls it, which means that the HHH(DDD) that it sees being called will do what it does.
>

 That you simply aren't bright enough to recognize a recursive
invocation chain is not my mistake.

But it isn't a recursive call, it is a finitely recursive simulation chain,

 Your posts have the professional decorum of a small child having
a temper tantrum. (the parts that were snipped).
 

You started it first, and it seems to be the only thing that get you to even try to answer to rebutals.
of course, since you don't actually try to rebute the errors found, it just demonstrtates that you are nothing but a pathelogical liar without anything to base his claims on.
Since YOU have the burden of proof, that just shows you have FAILED.
DRAMTICALLY.