Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN

On 2/15/25 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
article before or when HHH

That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.

Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that
paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.

It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
possibly show otherwise.

The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.

When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I
will point out the error.

We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
Since when DD run, it halts,

THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE

Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?

I will begin ignoring insincere replies.

Yes, please shut up.
>
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>

 The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.

Why not? What ACTUALLY was different?

 It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
 

Because the second still has the property of aborting when correctly simulated.
Your problem is you think LIES are true.
Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.