Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 4/29/2024 10:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 14:26:59 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:
>

When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

>
Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
insufficient or erronous.

>
Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.

>
Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct.
>

Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the
details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

>
Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?

>
I now have an airtight proof that I am correct.

 That does not matter unless you post a pointer to that proof (either
a web page or a publication).
 

*That does not work*
At best people simply misinterpret what I say and then conclude
that I must be wrong based on their misinterpretation.
Here is the most updated version of my paper.
There are single sentences in this paper that require long dialogues
to be fully understood.
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D --
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer