Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/2025 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

>
By replying to a yes or no question with the full
and complete justification forces the respondent
to look more deeply into these things than simply
dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.

>
But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
>

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

>
And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only includes the code of the function DDD as you've stated below,

>
*In other words you are too stupid to understand this*
>
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*
>

>
Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below)
>

>
If you disagree with the above you are disagreeing
with a self-evident truth.
>

>
I see you made no attempt to refute what I said, confirming your agreement.
>

 Not at all. I will not tolerate any scatter-brained
attempt at changing the subject, especially when you
proved that you don't even understand the meaning of
the words.

Just admit that you're not working on the halting problem and people will stop disagreeing with you.
Also:
On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.

>

Also:
 On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.
 

>

This constitutes your admission that every counterpoint made since then is *correct*, including but not limited to:
>
* The input to HHH(DDD) consists of only the code of the function DDD
* Halt deciders / termination analyzers accept as input the description / specification of an algorithm
* You're not actually working on the halting problem as your HHH doesn't work with the above
* You dishonestly dodge direct yes or no questions
>
>
>
On 6/8/2025 11:08 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> void DDD()
 >> {
 >>    HHH(DDD);
 >>    return;
 >> }
 >>
 >> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
 >
 > No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with
 > algorithms, but you HHH does not by your own admission: