• Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Apr 28 11:40:43 2024
    On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:

    When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
    my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
    my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

    Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
    until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
    H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
    insufficient or erronous.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Apr 29 12:11:58 2024
    On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:

    When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
    my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
    my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

    Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
    until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
    H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
    insufficient or erronous.

    Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
    of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.

    Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct.

    Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
    WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

    Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat May 4 11:48:48 2024
    On 2024-04-29 14:26:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:

    When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
    my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
    my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

    Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
    until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
    H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
    insufficient or erronous.

    Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
    of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.

    Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct. >>
    Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the
    details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
    WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

    Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?


    I now have an airtight proof that I am correct.

    It is not airtight until others say it is.

    People ignore all of the words and leap to the conclusion that
    I must be wrong. I refuse to move past the first step of the
    proof until we have mutual agreement on this first step.

    Then you will never move on.

    --
    Mikko

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