On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
the last instruction of this input.
On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:That is a despicable lie and you know it.
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
reach the last instruction of this input.
Wrong.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
That is a despicable lie and you know it.
On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
ever reach the last instruction of this input.
Wrong.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.
You are an atheist right?
What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be,
other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
(Note, PROGRAM)
No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?
YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.
YOU are the one who is making up your
own reality and denying that God exists
(since you can not analytically
prove that he does, and by your words, if you can't analytically prove
it, it isn't true).
On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
That is a despicable lie and you know it.
On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
reach the last instruction of this input.
Wrong.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.
You are an atheist right?
No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?
On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
That is a despicable lie and you know it.
On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself. >>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual >>>>>>> validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
would ever reach the last instruction of this input.
Wrong.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
You are an atheist right?
What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.
(Note, PROGRAM)
No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right? >>>
YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.
You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae.
Why lie does that give you A thrill?
Hopefully you will not be incinerated eternally.
This seems far too harsh to me.
YOU are the one who is making up your own reality and denying that God
exists
God is proven to exist empirically in that the fundamental nature of
reality is entirely different than what we have been brainwashed to
believe.
(since you can not analytically prove that he does, and by your
words, if you can't analytically prove it, it isn't true).
On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
That is a despicable lie and you know it.
On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
All things being equal which is more likely:
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself. >>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
actual validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering? >>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
would ever reach the last instruction of this input.
Wrong.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
You are an atheist right?
What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.
(Note, PROGRAM)
No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo,
right?
YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are.
You know that you are not following the definition of the x86
langugae. Why lie does that give you A thrill?
No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
location it is called.
What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
guilty of lying.
I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:27:11 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |