Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 26. May 2024, 04:25:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v2u6if$23vgo$3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/25/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>
No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>
After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>
>
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>
>
They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the terms that you are changing.
>
>
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>
Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>
(Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
>
>
The implications of your specifications are:
>
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>
>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST
>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>
I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>
I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>
I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>
>
>
>
Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps
 *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
 *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
 *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
 *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
 *If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
 
If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical pathologocial lying idiot.
As I said, your definitions, if you reject the implications, are inconsistant and need to have further restrictions implied, which makes your existing H not meet your (adjusted) definitions,
Of course, the problem is that you just don't have the background to understand any of this.
The ONLY reason I see for you to be resisting clearing up the implications, is that you KNOW that doing so will break your plan to try to slyly change the definitions in later steps to claim that the implications are not there.
That, or your whole logic is just shown to be totally wrong because you didn't know what you were doing (which is likely the case too).

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 May 24 * Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?186olcott
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?23Richard Damon
24 May 24 i+* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?10olcott
24 May 24 ii`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?9Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8olcott
24 May 24 ii  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?7Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 ii    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 ii      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 ii        `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?12Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i i   `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i      `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?154Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?153olcott
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?152Richard Damon
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?151olcott
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?150Richard Damon
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?149olcott
25 May 24 i     +- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
25 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?147olcott
25 May 24 i      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?146Richard Damon
25 May 24 i       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?145olcott
25 May 24 i        `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?144Richard Damon
25 May 24 i         `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?143olcott
25 May 24 i          +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?140Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i`* D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06139olcott
25 May 24 i          i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06138Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06137olcott
25 May 24 i          i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06134Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06133olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06132Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06131olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06130Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06129olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06128Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 064olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 063Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i    `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06121olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06120Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06119olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06118Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06117olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06116Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06115olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06114Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06113olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06112Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06109olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06108Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?101olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?100Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?99olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?98Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?97olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?96Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---95olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---94Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---93olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---92Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof4olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof3Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof2olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof1Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz87olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz86Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                              `* A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩85olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                               `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩84Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩83olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                 `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩82Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩4olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i  `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩77olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩73olcott
25 May 24 i          i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062Alan Mackenzie
26 May 24 i          `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal