On 1/16/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/16/2024 6:00 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/16/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
↑ title ↑
PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
miss crucial points. TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation
gets to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function
step by step process, and so on. Where he is aware of this, PO
calls it "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
[the same copy-pasted spam post as everywhere else]
Olcott still hasn't said what "correctly simulated by H" means.
I said it 100 times and you ignored what I said.
Except what you say can't be right, as your H doesn't do it, only a
hypohetical that is different than the one you are using.
You don't seem to understand that the program needs to be the program,
and not just some idea of what you want the program to be.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)