Re: Definition of real number ℝ --infinitesimal-- --abort decider--

On 4/3/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2024 3:09 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 4/3/2024 12:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
[...]

Olcott is unable to understand  what it says in the context of the
real number system, even when spelled out to him in great
detail. Therefore he sticks to his own (wrong) interpretation and then
starts to fight it. Fighting windmills.

Might I suggest waiting to reply to olcott until he says something
*new*.  It could save a lot of time and effort.

>
0.999... everyone knows that this means infinitely repeating digits
that never reach 1.0 and lies about it. I am not going to start lying
about it.

>
(I don't read everything olcott writes, but that *might* be something
new.)
>
Nobody here is lying.  (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
Some people here are wrong.
>
You might take a moment to think about *why* so many people would be
motivated to lie about something like this.

 They take textbooks as the infallible word of God.

And you take your own thoughts as the infallible word of God, since you think you are he.

 

Is it really plausible
that multiple people (a) know in their hearts that you're right,
but (b) deliberately pretend that you're wrong?
>

They take textbooks as the infallible word of God.
Thus do not bother to think it through.

And you claim the textbooks are wrong without understanding what they say.

 

I'm not asking you to share your thoughts, just to think about it.
>
I've seen you accuse others here of lying and later acknowledge
that they were not.  I have never seen you demonstrate that anyone
else was actually lying (i.e., spreading deliberate falsehoods).
>

Several people that try to show that this abort decider is always
incorrect seem to be liars because numerous experts at software
engineering confirmed that it is correct.
 01 void D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
02 {
03   H(x, x);
04   return;
05 }
06
07 void main()
08 {
09   H(D,D);
10 }
 *Execution Trace*
Line 09: main() invokes H(D,D);
 *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)

But since it DOES about, that is just a statement about something that doesn't happen here.

Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
 *Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

But since this H doesn't correctly simuate its input, this is just a statement about something that doesn't happen here, and is thus irrelevent.

 As soon as line 03 would be simulated  H sees that D would call
itself with its same input, then H aborts D.

Which is why nothing you said that requires H to not abort its simulation.
Since H DOES abort its simulation, it is just a LIE to act like it didn't.
Of course, that seems to be the only tye of logic you know how to do.

 

Stop accusing others of lying.  It never ends well for you.
>