On 10/26/2025 10:04 PM, dbush wrote:On 10/26/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote:><repeat of previously refuted point>
By trying to hide this evidence:
>
> 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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.