Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/22/25 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2025 1:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 21 May 2025 18:14:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D that can ACTUALLY DO
the opposite of whatever value that H returns making it impossible for H
to decide D.

No, the proof assumes there is a *decider* and then shows exactly *how*
to construct a counterexample.
>

 Yet no one ever bothers to notice that
this counter-example input cannot possibly
actually do the opposite of whatever value
that its decider returns.
 

WHy Not?
After all, the input represents a PROGRAM, and that program does the opposite.
Only by LYING that the behaivor is what the PARTIAL simulation done by the decder does determines what the input does gives you your results.
Thus, all you have done is proven you are just a stupid liar.