Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D) is correct

On 3/29/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

Right, but as you have admitted, the behavior of that machine code CHANGES depending on what is at the location of H.
>

>
The behavior of D simulated by any H that can possibly exist
remains the same.

>
Nope.
>
The behavior of D CHANGES based on the H it attaches to.
>

>
The behavior of D simulated by any H that can possibly exist
remains the same.

>
Nope. Since you are using a "meaningless" term, it is just a non-truth bearer. Partial simulations do not reveal behavior, only complete simulations.
>

 Yes and your same reasoning says that mathematical induction can't
possibly work. No finite sequences of steps can every be extrapolated
to an in finite number of steps.
 

Why do you say that?
I guess you don't think all the Natural Numbers exist.
You are just showing that you are using incorrect logic;

Are you trying to get away with saying that you simply do not
"believe in" mathematical induction?

You need to show that actual steps that PROVE your induction, which I don't think you actually know what they are.

 

This means that the only Hs that meet your "definition" of H are those that act like UTMs, and thus NO H that meets your specification are deciders.
>

 You are too much of a liar. If you don't quit
I am going to give up on you.
 

Nope, Show the LIE.
You LIE when you claim others LIE but can not show the actual incorrect statement.
You hit the problem that there ARE actual definitions and you will need to try to "misquote" one to try to show a lie, and then your lie becomes too obvious for you.