Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply

On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.

>

I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.

>
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
>

>
I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
for an error and finding none.

>
BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual
>

>
If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong
yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes
this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient
technical competence.
>

>
We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS.
>

>
When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the
behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong.
>
*You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God*
>

>
>
Why do you say it can not be "mapped"
>
Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider are supposed to use, as
>

>
You need to show every single freaking step of exactly
DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own
machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT!

>
>
No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem BACKWARDS, like most of your logic.
>

 _DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
 There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated
by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to
the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address
[0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it*
 *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell*
 

It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider!
You are just trying to assume the conclusion.
You are just showing that you believe in strawman and lies.
You have been cast out of the realms of logic into the hell of your own lies, which you can not see because you have brainwashed yourself.
The DEFINITION of the question, is does the direct execution of the machine represented by the input halt.
ANY CLAIMS OTHERWISE just proves you are a LIAR, which you have very conclusively proved.
Thus, you have shown you have built a perfect Rev 21 trap for yourself, all signed, sealed ans just waiting for your soon to come delivery, unless you figure how to cancel your ticket.