Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++

On 5/11/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2024 10:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/24 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>

*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
*Any H/D pair matching the above template*
>
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
*where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls*
>
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
*cannot possibly reach past its own line 03*
>
You are simply dishonest.

>
Which has been proven wrong, as publically posted
>
And you don't beleive your statement strongly enough to post the challenge to have me show you where in this public discussion place it was said in a message you even replied to, so you claims that you statement must be true is just a lie, you don't believe it to be "impossible true" as you like to say, so no excuse for an honest mistake.
>
You are just showing that your natural language is that of lies.

 I have used the conventional term-of-the-art {Termination Analyzer}
in the title of my paper since 2023/06/19
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
*THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE OVERRIDING CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING THAT I SAY*
 That you simply ignore the meaning of this conventional
term-of-the-art is your mistake.
 

No, you use the wrong definition of the term-of-the-art, because you refuese to actually learn what you talk about.
YOU say it needs to be only right about two inputs.
The wikipedia link you provide, says it needs to decide about its input (implying for all possible inputs) if that machine will halt for all possible inputs.
Thus, your definition that you have been working on is just a LIE, and all your work is built on false definitions.
It seems, you don't even know what the term term-of-the-art actually means, let alone any of the other terms you use with incorrect defintitions based on your own false understanding of the fields you try to talk about,
You are just proving that you whole logic system is based on fabrications and lies.