XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/15/25 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2025 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-14 13:44:30 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/14/2025 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-13 17:59:23 +0000, André G. Isaak said:

On 2025-06-13 09:36, olcott wrote:

On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do)
maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.

I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am >>>>>>>> dead.
A web-page will not work for this.

Usenet is dying. Do you seriously think it will be around in 50
years?

Some of its contents might still be on some web page.

Storing every text message ever written seems
to take < 1.0 TB.

Doesn't matter. Unlikely that anyone would even notice that you wanted >>>> a validation of something.

Anyone with sufficient technical competence carefully
studying what I have said that is not so biased against
my position that they can actually pay complete attention
will understand that I am correct.

Nope, only someone as mentally deranged as yourself would believe your
lies.

If this was not the case then there could be a correct
rebuttal to what I am saying now. Instead of any correct
rebuttal all that has been provided is persistently
false assumptions.

There has been, but it has appearently been over you head.

You have demonstarted this by making this claim many times, and the
errors you have ignored pointed out.

A termination analyzer / partial halt decider is
required to report on the behavior of the sequence
of state transitions that its input actually specifies.
It is not allowed to report on anything else.

Right, and that sequence of states spedified by that input, is the
sequence of states actually generated by that program when run,

int main()
{
  DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that is not allowed to report
}        // on the behavior of its caller.

Richard pretends to not understand that a function
that calls another function is not itself the actual
input to the function that it calls.

And Olcott seems to think that asking about the behavior of a function
by giving a full specification of it, somehow doesn't ask about all
invokations of that functions, as if they could differ.

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

When I challenge anyone to show DDD correctly simulated
by simulating termination analyzer HHH can possibly reach
its own simulated termination analyzer they ignore this
challenge because:

Because you forget the fact that it is just a LIE that your HHH
correctly simulates its input.

Sorry, asking for someone to prove that the moon is made of green cheese
just isn't a valid form of arguement.

(a) They know that they are lying.

YOU know you are lying.

(b) They don't hardly understand these things at all and
    don't understand my challenge.

You don't understand that programs are fixed entites, and changing them
makes them something differe.

(c) I don't know of any third option.

You don't know ANY optins, as your claim is just false.

THAT FACT THAT NOT ONE PERSON HAS MET THIS CHALLENGE
IN SEVERAL YEARS IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT.

All you are doing is proving that you are just a stupid idiot that
doesn't know what he is talking about.

It seems that lies are just your native tounge, and you can't say
anthing but them.

You have effetivelly admitted to all of this by failing to actually
answer any of the rebuttals given to you, and thus you have strpped
yourself of any ignorance defense, as all the ignorance is either just
fained, deliberately self-imposed, and a sign of mental incapicity.

Sorry, that is the reputation you are leaving as your legacy,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)