Re: HHH(DDD)==0

On 2024-10-09 20:04:18 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/9/24 7:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-09 03:47:10 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
 > Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
 > someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
 > Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
 > incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
 > must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
 > that Peter is running rings around you.
 I am incapable of conceding this self-evident truth:
    DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
   exist never returns

 That is not self-evident or even meaningful without a definition of
"each corresponding HHH".
 

An HHH/DDD pair such that DDD calls its own emulator.

 Thus additting that each of those DDD are different, and that HHH must look at the exact DDD that calls it, which means that the HHH(DDD) that it sees being called will do what it does.
 

 That you simply aren't bright enough to recognize a recursive
invocation chain is not my mistake.
 Your posts have the professional decorum of a small child having
a temper tantrum. (the parts that were snipped).

An important point to note is the ad hominem response without substance
to a substantial comment.
--
Mikko