Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 6/6/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.On 6/6/2024 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.On 6/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/6/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 10:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/5/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/5/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/5/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/5/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>Nopoe, because it is based on the LIE that a partial simulation of a machine indicates what it will do after the simulation stopped, and that the simulation of a DIFFERENT machine tells you of the behavior of a different machine then simulated.>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>
I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
Then you aren't going to get anywhere, because I just don't care about that worthless claim. Only when you cross the line from talking about the SUBJECTIVE answer that HH saw, to the OBJECTIVE behavior of the machine the input represents to a Halt Decider, will you get me caring, and slapping you down hard with a factual rebuttal.
>>>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
But I don't claim that it can. I won't go to the effort to confirm that it can't, because, frankly, I don't give a damn because it is MEANINGLESS.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT
UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE
THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MY PROOF*
>
THUS THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK TO ME ABOUT UNTIL
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.