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

On 5/23/25 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 21:24, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

Liar

>
An unequivocal response, but it lacks persuasive power.
>

 When I provide the exact detailed steps of exactly how
people can show that I am wrong and they refuse to
show that I am wrong yet claim that I am wrong this
is the kind of reckless disregard for the truth that
loses defamation cases.
 

But people don't need to use your FAULTY criteria.
The fact that you have ADMITTED that your whole argument is a category error means no more proof is needed.
Since the Halting Problem is about making a DECIDER, that is a type of PROGRAM, that decides on PROGRAMS (given via a representation), and you have positively admitted that your HHH, and the input DD / DDD are absolutely NOT programs, your whole argument FAILS by not meeting the entry requirements.
Sorry, but you stipulated yourself out of the problem.