Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/3/2025 10:38 AM, Mike Terry wrote:But since your "tautology' is based on lying, it isn't really a tautology.On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote:Like I said until you pay enough attention it may seemOn 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:>Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his position, PO can (will) just invent new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in order to somehow justify his busted intuitions.>
My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though it looks like it does:
>
>
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote:
> The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
> BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
> Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
> a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
> then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
Right - magical thinking.
>
that way. I know that I am correct because I can see
all of the details of a semantic tautology.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.