Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory

On 6/28/2025 10:21 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.

>
The definition of HHH is missing.

>
The definition is specified in this part that you
dishonestly erased:
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
>

>
The dishonest one here is YOU, as it was not wij who snipped the below in his reply but YOU:
>

>
I stop at the first counter-factual mistake so I stop here.
Everything else is ignored.
>

 In other words, you INTENTIONALLY don't read things that prove you wrong.
 

On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
 >
 > The definition of HHH is missing.
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
 >
It is a verified fact that the definition of HHH was
provided thus the claim that it was not provided is
counter factual.
Your mere rhetoric to the contrary does not actually change
these verified facts. Are you able to stick with correct
reasoning or is mere rhetoric all that you have?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer