XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/27/2025 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/26/2025 11:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-27, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/26/2025 9:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-26 19:58, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/26/2025 8:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And   
   >>>>> *Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How the hell is that a response to the word 'And'? At least quote   
   >>>> enough   
   >>>> material that its apparent what you are responding to.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> André   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> He is trying to get away with spamming me with   
   >>> deceit so I erase all of it and keep ridiculing   
   >>   
   >> Aha!   
   >>   
   >> So you finally appreciate how it looks like spamming when you are on the   
   >> receiving end of these god-forsaken x86utm execution traces!   
   >>   
   >> You pathetic sack of shit, unable to respond to /code/!   
   >>   
   >   
   > Here is the code   
   >   
   > A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   > C programmer can easily determine:   
   >   
   > int DD()   
   > {   
   >    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >    if (Halt_Status)   
   >      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >    return Halt_Status;   
   > }   
   >   
   > HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   > again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Repeat of previously refuted point (see below)   
      
   >> Calling people dishonest while dodging findings from an independent   
   >> third party review of your apparatus.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The crux of everything that can be said about   
   > HHH(DD) is summed up in the above 15 lines.   
   >   
   >> You are a disgrace to STEM.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I am not the one dishonestly dodging   
      
   Yes you are:   
      
      
   On 10/26/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote:   
    > On 10/26/2025 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
    >> On 10/26/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:   
    >>> On 10/26/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
    >>>> On 10/26/2025 8:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
    >>>>   
    >>>> int DD()   
    >>>> {   
    >>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
    >>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
    >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
    >>>>    return Halt_Status;   
    >>>> }   
    >>>>   
    >>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
    >>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
    >>>>   
    >>>>   
    >>>   
    >>> And HHH figures it out incorrectly as proven by the code posted by   
   Katz.   
    >>>   
    >>   
    >> You can't even get his name correctly deep ship!   
    >> (A less contentious way of say dip shit).   
    >>> If you disagree, point out exactly where Kaz's code is in error.   
    >>>   
    >>> Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next   
    >>> post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record   
    >>> admission that Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH   
    >>> simulates will halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that   
    >>> the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation.   
    >   
    > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made no attempt to show how the   
    > code posted by Kaz proves that the DDD that HHH simulates will halt.   
    > Therefore:   
    >   
    > Let The Record Show   
    >   
    > That Peter Olcott   
    >   
    > Has *officially* admitted:   
    >   
    > That Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH simulates will   
    > halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that the input to HHH(DD)   
    > specifies a halting computation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)