olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting
De : dbush.mobile (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dbush)
Groupes : comp.theory comp.lang.c++ comp.lang.c comp.ai.philosophy
Date : 27. Oct 2025, 03:33:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10dmlm2$cidr$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/26/2025 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/26/2025 9:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>
There's no deceit in the fact that you admitted on the record that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation:
>
*Sure there is any C programmer can see this*
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
again and again until HHH figures out what is up.
Repeat of previously refuted point as shown below that you dishonesty tried to hide by erasing.
Are there no depths to which you'll sink to hide your lies?

 *It did take me 22 years to get it that simple*
*21 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, 6 days to be exact*
 On 10/26/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 10/26/2025 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 10/26/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 10/26/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 10/26/2025 8:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>> int DD()
 >>>> {
 >>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
 >>>>    if (Halt_Status)
 >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
 >>>>    return Halt_Status;
 >>>> }
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this
 >>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>> And HHH figures it out incorrectly as proven by the code posted by Katz.
 >>>
 >>
 >> You can't even get his name correctly deep ship!
 >> (A less contentious way of say dip shit).
 >>> If you disagree, point out exactly where Kaz's code is in error.
 >>>
 >>> Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next
 >>> post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record
 >>> admission that Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH
 >>> simulates will halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that
 >>> the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made no attempt to show how the
 > code posted by Kaz proves that the DDD that HHH simulates will halt.
 > Therefore:
 >
 > Let The Record Show
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted:
 >
 > That Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH simulates will
 > halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that the input to HHH(DD)
 > specifies a halting computation.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
25 Oct 25 * No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years199olcott
25 Oct 25 +- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Bonita Montero
25 Oct 25 +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years2dbush
25 Oct 25 i`- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Richard Heathfield
25 Oct 25 +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years64dart200
25 Oct 25 i+- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1olcott
26 Oct 25 i`* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years62olcott
27 Oct 25 i `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years61Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years55olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i+- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i+- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Chris M. Thomasson
27 Oct 25 i  i`* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years52Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i `* A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has51olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  +* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has41dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i+* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has2olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  ii`- Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i`* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has38Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i `* Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit37olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  +* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit5Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  i+- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  i`* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit3Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  i `* Kaz proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- Is Kaz just a Liar ???2olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  i  `- Re: Kaz proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- Is Kaz just a Liar ???1Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i  `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit31André G. Isaak
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   +* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit26olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i+- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1Chris M. Thomasson
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i+* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit14dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii`* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit13olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit12dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  +* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit5olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  i`* olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting4dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  i +* dbush is now dishonored in his deceit2olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  i i`- olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  i `- dbush proves his deceit by dodging this simple point1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii  `* Can someone from comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++ help out here?6olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii   `* olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting5dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii    `* dbush proves is deceit by dodging this simple point4olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii     `* olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting3dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii      `* dbush proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- dbush is a bot?2olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   ii       `- olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i`* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit10Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i +* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit4olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i i+- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i i`* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit2Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i i `- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1Chris M. Thomasson
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit5Tristan Wibberley
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i  `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit4olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i   `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit3Tristan Wibberley
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i    +- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i    `- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1Chris M. Thomasson
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   +* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit2Janis Papanagnou
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   i`- Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  i   `* Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit2Dan Cross
27 Oct 25 i  i  i    `- I am only in these groups because I have been cheated out of a fair review.1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i  `* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has9Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i   `* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit8olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i    +* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit5dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i    i`* dbush is now dishonored in his deceit4olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i    i `* Re: dbush is now dishonored in his deceit3dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i    i  `* Re: dbush is now dishonored in his deceit2olcott
27 Oct 25 i  i    i   `- olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting1dbush
27 Oct 25 i  i    `* Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit2Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i  i     `- Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit1olcott
27 Oct 25 i  `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years5Mike Terry
27 Oct 25 i   `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years4olcott
27 Oct 25 i    `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years3Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i     `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years2olcott
27 Oct 25 i      `- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Kaz Kylheku
26 Oct 25 +- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Mikko Levanto
27 Oct 25 +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years85Bonita Montero
27 Oct 25 i`* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years84olcott
27 Oct 25 i `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years83Bonita Montero
27 Oct 25 i  `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years82olcott
27 Oct 25 i   +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years2Bonita Montero
27 Oct 25 i   i`- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1olcott
27 Oct 25 i   +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years78Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i   i`* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years77olcott
27 Oct 25 i   i `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years76Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i   i  `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years75olcott
27 Oct 25 i   i   `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years74dbush
27 Oct 25 i   i    `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years73olcott
27 Oct 25 i   i     `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years72dbush
27 Oct 25 i   i      `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years71olcott
27 Oct 25 i   i       `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years70dbush
27 Oct 25 i   i        +* PO Meltdown?60Kaz Kylheku
27 Oct 25 i   i        i+* Re: PO Meltdown?52dbush
27 Oct 25 i   i        ii`* Re: PO Meltdown?51Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii `* Re: PO Meltdown?50Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  +* Kaz is a damned liar3olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  i`* Re: Kaz is a damned liar2Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  i `- Re: Kaz is a damned liar1Chris M. Thomasson
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  +- Kaz is a damned liar1olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  +* Re: PO Meltdown?42Mike Terry
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  i+* D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line31olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii+- Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line1dbush
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii`* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line29olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii +- Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line1dbush
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii `* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line27Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii  +* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line21olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii  i+* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line15Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii  ii`* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line14Mike Terry
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii  i`* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line5joes
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  ii  `* Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line5dbush
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  i+* Re: PO Meltdown?8Kaz Kylheku
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  i`* D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line2olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        ii  `* D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line3olcott
27 Oct 25 i   i        i`* Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable7olcott
28 Oct 25 i   i        `* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years9olcott
27 Oct 25 i   `- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1tTh
27 Oct 25 +* Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years44Mikko
28 Oct 25 `- Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years1Chris M. Thomasson

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal