On 8/6/21 6:56 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/6/2021 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/5/21 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/5/2021 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/5/21 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
I don't refuse to respond to rebuttals. I refuse to respond to you. >>>>>>
I also refuse to respond to dishonest dodges, changing the subject to >>>>>> avoid addressing the point at hand.
As soon as I prove my point people change the subject.
It is counter-productive for me to tolerate this.
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
It took fifty exchanges for you to pay enough attention to acknowledge >>>>>> that int main(){ P(P); } never halts when we assume that H is only a >>>>>> pure simulator.
No, you refuse to responde to rebuttals from me because I present
rebuttals so clear that you can't come up with an answer to them.
All of your "rebuttals" are entirely anchored in your inability to pay >>>> attention.
FALSE.
You lack of responses shows you don't understand any of the theory you
are talking about.
What you call a 'dishonest dodge' is me pointing out that the Nth time >>>>> you start an arguement, and are trying to misuse a terminology, that I >>>>It does not freaking matter that I misuse terminology that is a freaking >>>> dishonest dodge. What matters is that my halt decider is correct.
Only if you are misusing the word 'correct', or is it Halting.
Misuse of terminology is Fundamentally wrong.
I don't misuse those words. If I misuse terminology that it material to
my proof then there is a problem.
Yes, words like Turing Machine, or Halting, or Correct, or Equivalent,
or even Proof.
You don't seem to really know what these are.
If my misuse of terminology is immaterial to my proof then this is an
side-issue that is irrelevant to my proof.
When people use irrelevant side-issues to avoid addressing the key point
at hand this is a dishonest dodge.
Oh, and that is another word you misuse, 'dishonest'. It is NOT
dishonest to point out an error in an arguement, even if it isn't the
point you are trying to focus on as long as it does relate to the
problem at hand.
YOU use dishonest dodges to avoid having to try to deal with the
multitude of errors in your logic.
Glad you admit that.
It shows you utter lack of knowledge in the field.
It does not show an utter lack of knowledge in the field.
Whht, like the fact that you totally don't understand what a Turing
Machine or a Computation is? Or Haltimg, or even what a Proof is.
Not sure you really understand what is Truth.
It shows a lack of complete knowledge in the field that can effect my
credibility. This lack has no effect on the validity of my proof that
H(P,P)==0 is correct.
Only that just about every statement in you 'proof' is invalid or unsound.
You don't seem to know enough to know how badly you are wrong.
point out where you are going to in two steps change the meaning of a >>>>> word and still assume the arguement based on a different meaning still >>>>> holds.
THIS IS THE ONLY FREAKING DETAIL THAT COUNTS.
H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status of the input to H.
Everything that bypasses this point is a dishonest dodge.
Ok, IF Halting is defined to be non-halting, then H(P,P) being
non-halting could be a correct answer in your world of inconsistent
logic.
Halting is defined as reaching the final state of the C function.
Right, and when you run P(P) is does that.
Not halting is defined as never reaching the final state of the function
while H is in pure simulator mode. Not halting must be defined in terms
of never reaching the final state of the function to distinguish it from
functions that had their simulation aborted.
WRONG. Not Halting is defined as never being able to reach the final
state of the function when fully run. The fact that a simulation doesn't
get there because the simulation was stopped before it happened to get
there proves nothing.
THIS sort of 'Misuse of Terminology' is why your whole arguments isn't
worth the paper it is written on.
To paraphrase Sargent Shultz, YOU KNOW NOTHING.
You don't seem to even know enough to see how idiodic your statements sound.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 77:47:32 |
Calls: | 7,775 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,750,031 |