XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: acm@muc.de   
      
   [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   > On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >> olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
      
   >>>> [ .... ]   
      
   >>>>>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   >>>>>> Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation   
   >>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as proven   
   >>>>>> by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The infinity is   
   >>>>>> only in your dreams.   
      
      
   >>>>> HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD calls HHH(DDD)   
      
   >>>>> HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD DOES NOT   
   >>>>> CALL HHH1(DDD)   
      
   >>>>> At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.   
      
   >>>> As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are no position to   
   >>>> call anybody else here a liar.  Glass house inhabitants, throwing stones,   
   >>>> and all that.   
      
   >>>> And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by sticking to   
   >>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous.  Not any more.  That is   
   >>>> a most unwelcome change.   
      
      
   >>> void DDD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>    return;   
   >>> }   
      
   >>> *That not one single person here*   
   >>> (besides those that I invited from the C groups)   
   >>> acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies   
   >>> recursive simulation   
      
   >>> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides   
   >>> willful deception.   
      
   >> Foul mouthed lying on your part.  It can be attributed to your lack of   
   >> self awareness and lack of technical ability.  Everybody here but you can   
   >> see that.   
      
      
   > It is not any lack of technical ability that determines   
   > whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or   
   > cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.   
      
   It is a lack of technical ability on your part which is unable to judge   
   whether such a correct simulation is possible.  Everybody else sees that   
   it is not, so further questions about it are non-sensical.   
      
   > Instead of addressing this you used the dishonest dodge   
   > of ad hominem attack. It is for this exact same reason   
   > that I am justified in calling out liars.   
      
   For calling you the liar that you've been shown to be on this very   
   thread?  That makes it doubly nauseating that you have the hypocrisy   
   (falsely) to accuse others of being liars.   
      
   > As soon as the first person utterly gives up dishonestly   
   > trolling me and gives my work an actual fair review I   
   > will treat that person with kindness and respect.   
      
   Nobody's "dishonestly trolling" you.  You wouldn't know a fair review if   
   it bit you on the nose.  By "fair review" what you really mean is   
   somebody accepting your views.  Other people here are too careful about   
   telling the truth to do that.   
      
   > I tried kindness and respect for many years and the trolls   
   > took this as weakness to be exploited.   
      
   Not at all.  There's been the odd troll here over the years, Mr. Flibble   
   probably being the latest of these, but in the main people have been   
   sincere and truthful.  That appears to be something you can't deal with.   
      
   > --   
   > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --   
   Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)