Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

>
One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
"simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
>

>
D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.

>
Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>

>
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*

>
>
You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply.
>

 The only way to get people to understand that I am correct
and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
 

No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and move to what is harder to understand.
People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to.
Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you speak is non-sense.
You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what might make sense.
You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, but then seem to explicitly go on a tack that will force you to waste time by needing to return to your prior points when you change the definition and prove them again.
Of course, the likely answer is that you DON'T plan to go back and reshow those points, but just try to convince people that the change in meaning between the two sides of the arguement doesn't matter.