Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to morally
corrupt to admit it.

>
Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at this are you Damon?
>
/Flibble

>
I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance.
>

>
No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask your lies.
>
>
I point out your stupidity to help people understand where you are coming from so they don't try to find the logic in your illogical statements.

>
Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning.
When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare.
>

>
Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars.
>
Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire.
>
You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on him.

>
OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while
I see that this is mutually respected and there is
no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest.

 Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest that doesn't count.
 

Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty.
Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by
HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.

I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie.
 

The we must also agree that an actual lie only
includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement.

>
For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated
by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD
have been emulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating
itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD).

 But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the statement is just a LIE.
 

That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes
that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86
language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION*
You cannot possibly refute that with any kind of correct
reasoning. That the emulation must be infinite to be
correct is fucking nuts.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer