Sujet : Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 21. Jun 2024, 03:04:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.
>
I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.
>
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
>
>
I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way
to people that have already made up their mind and closed it
thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking
for an error and finding none.
BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual
>
If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong
yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes
this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient
technical competence.
>
We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS.
When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the
behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong.
*You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God*
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…