XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
Op 30.jul.2025 om 01:10 schreef olcott:
> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> 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
As usual counter factual.
I told you many times that it specifies a finite recursion. But you seem
to think that a finite recursion is sufficient reason to conclude
non-halting. It is not. Why closing your eyes for the truth?
It suggests that this attitude
>
> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides
> willful deception.
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
