Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?

On 5/25/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:

*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
*We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*

>
No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>
After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>

>
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
*Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>

>
They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the terms that you are changing.
>

>
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
*In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*

>
Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>
(Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
>
>
The implications of your specifications are:
>
1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>

>
OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

>
Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.
>

I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>
I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>
I CAN PROVE MY POINT IN FIVE STEPS YOU CANNOT SKIP STEP ONE
STEP TWO DEPENDS ON STEP ONE, LIKEWISE DOWN TO STEP FIVE.
>

>
>
>
Then DO so, you will need to do it without agreement on the steps

>
*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
>
*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
>
*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
>
*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
>
*If you cannot accept step one that is sufficient evidence to me*
*that you are insufficiently honest until you show otherwise*
>

>
If you will not accept the implication of your definitions, that is proof to me that you are just a total ignorant hypocritical pathologocial lying idiot.
>
>

 I ask for specific reasoning and instead you provide insults
this is additional evidence that you are a dishonest troll.

Because, as I have said, the answer and reasoning changes depending on what you acknowledged are the implications of your stipulations. For instance, if your actual understanding of being a "Pure Function" is that the program is the equivalent of a Turing Machine, then we need to add a strictness to the definition that isn't normally used for just "Pure Functions", like accessing value of registers like the program counter or stack pointer might not be allowed in some cases. (which breaks you H).

 You have provided valuable feedback that has got us to this
point in our dialogue. I told a close friend that your review
of my work has greatly increased the quality of my words.

So, take some more advice and give answers to the questions.

 Now that these words finally are very good you deny easily
verified facts.

But you have either misunderstanding of the meanings of your words, or you don't understand their implications.
If you really mean the surface meaning of your words, then you need to accept the implications of those. If you have other meanings in your mind, they need to be said.
Just like when I provided the "C Function" for H that wasn't a pure function, because your current requirements NEVER SAID PURE, but those were added afterwords, we need to verify that there are not any other implied but not stated requirements, as would be implie by

 This could possibly result in your eternal incineration even
if I myself doubt it.
 Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless,[a] the polluted, the murderers,
the sexually immoral,[b] the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars,
their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which
is the second death.”
 I asked a street preacher with a masters degree in divinity about this
last night and he said agreed that a woman that consistently lies about
her weight by one pound condemns herself if she does not repent.

And why do you think he would be an expert on this?

 My church says that only those the know the truth and deny it anyway
will be so condemned.
 

And they are wrong, because God has provided enough proof that he exists to all, that those who reject him are condemned (Rom 1:20 and surrounding). Thus, ALL have had the ability to know the truth, so ay who reject him are under his wrath.

According to the bible the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit.
 

But you do not know the Bible, but only seem to have a surface understanding of what it says,
Just like your understanding of logic, you don't know what the Bible says, because you never actually studied it, but just apparently skimmed it, and think you know the deep meanings of it.