Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Alan Mackenzie tries to get away with mere rhetoric as a rebuttal

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
 In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
 [ .... ]
 

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

 This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
 Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
 May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
 Thanks!
 

*Alan Mackenzie tries to get away with mere rhetoric as a rebuttal*
Every fake rebuttal like yours are entirely baseless by failing
to point out any mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus
is necessarily correct.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design requirement that HHH must itself halt.
We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer