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

On 5/11/2024 10:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
 

*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
>
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
>
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
>
You are simply dishonest.

 Which has been proven wrong, as publically posted
 And you don't beleive your statement strongly enough to post the challenge to have me show you where in this public discussion place it was said in a message you even replied to, so you claims that you statement must be true is just a lie, you don't believe it to be "impossible true" as you like to say, so no excuse for an honest mistake.
 You are just showing that your natural language is that of lies.

I have used the conventional term-of-the-art {Termination Analyzer}
in the title of my paper since 2023/06/19
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
*THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE OVERRIDING CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING THAT I SAY*
That you simply ignore the meaning of this conventional
term-of-the-art is your mistake.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer