Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets

On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong.
There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.

>
Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>

 *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
 When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
am wrong on any one point.
 The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
 *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
 *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
∃H ∈ C_Functions
∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
 

Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:

>
How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it?

 I did not read it that way.
I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
 

My points were :
-   you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
     out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
     shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
     yourself.
     [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
-   you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
     ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
     a point to you.
-   you should argue your own case in your own words.
Mike.