Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ===

On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>

Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.

>
Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>
PERIOD.

 *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
 Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
 as *D NEVER simulated by H*
 you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.

 *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
 

But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not.
I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D past line 3.
THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid.
The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie.