Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 29/05/2025 20:06, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 2:02 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 19:16, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 12:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 17:42, olcott wrote:

THIS POINT IS NOW CLOSED
*HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DDD*

>
It's as easy as that, eh? Okay.
>
THIS POINT IS NOW CLOSED
Olcott's 'proof' doesn't prove his claim.
>

>
Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.

>
Maybe you have no idea what s proof is.
>

All tautologies always prove themselves.
Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.

>
It's a self-evident truth that your 'proof' is baloney, therefore it's a self-evident truth that your 'proof' is baloney.
>

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...

>
So you admit you have no proof.
>

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
 *THIS IS COMPLETE PROOF*

No, it really really isn't. Assertion is not the same as a proof.

It is a tautology that any input D to simulating termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.

I've addressed this point already, but clearly you are unable to refute my reply, which is hardly surprising.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within