Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/18/25 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/17/2025 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/17/2025 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/17/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.feb.2025 om 18:11 schreef olcott:

On 2/17/2025 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.feb.2025 om 15:06 schreef olcott:

>
When the problem definition is specify the algorithm
for correctly encoding a correct geometric square circle
then rejecting the original problem definition is the only
correct option.
>
The inability to correctly encode such as algorithm
places no actual limit on computation.
>

>
So, Olcott thinks that by changing the definitions he can create an algorithm to encode a correct geometric square circle

>
*I didn't say anything like that*
That you said that did does not seem like any honest mistake.
>

>
But it is just as isomorphic to what you said as your "termination analyzer" is to the Halting Problem.

>
THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THE ABOVE REPLY.
>

>
>
Of course it is, YOU claim he is wrong because you didn't say what he said you implied, but your statement *IS* Isomorphic to it in a sense.
>

 I did not even use the term isomorphic in the above.
I will start trimming the posts much more.

No, you complianed about someone else using it to mock your misuse of it elsewhere.
The problem is your initial statement was based on erroneous presumptions, which was being pointed out.

 *Stay within the precise context of my exact reply*

If it HAD a percise meaning.
Your problem is you misuse so many words, your statement are often just nonsense.

 The problem of defining the algorithm to encode an actual
square circle can only be correctly rejected as nonsense.
 

But the arguement is in error if the problem was to draw a square with the same area as a circle, the classical "Squaring the Circle" problem.
Your ignorance of what you talk about doesn't make your erroneous "isomorphism" (that aren't) valid. It just shows how stupid you are.