Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/23/25 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 15:37:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/22/2025 1:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 21 May 2025 18:14:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D that can ACTUALLY DO
the opposite of whatever value that H returns making it impossible for H
to decide D.

No, the proof assumes there is a *decider* and then shows exactly *how*
to construct a counterexample.

>
Yet no one ever bothers to notice that
this counter-example input cannot possibly
actually do the opposite of whatever value
that its decider returns.

>
It really is hard to notice someting that is very obviously false.
>

 You must look at it 100-fold more closely than anyone else ever has.
 int main()
{
   DD(); // How does the HHH that DD calls report on the
}       // behavior of its caller?
 

Wrong, as explained in the other message.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you think lies make good argument.
How can you claim to be fighint lies, when you just do the same thing.