XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: acm@muc.de   
      
   [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/17/2025 10:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >> [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   >> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior   
   >>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of   
   >>>>> knowing what function is calling it.   
      
   >>>>> This means that when the halting problem   
   >>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of   
   >>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring   
   >>>>> something outside the scope of computation.   
      
   >>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.   
      
   >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
   >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
   >>> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
      
   >> Utterly wilful and stupid would be more like it.   
      
   >>> Yes and now if you could just translate that   
   >>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning   
   >>> with a sound basis.   
      
   >>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this   
   >>> would be totally out of your depth as it   
   >>> would be for most everyone.   
      
   >> Your thinking is out of kilter with reality.   
      
      
   > Yet you cannot show that on the basis of reasoning   
   > so you try to dishonestly get way with mere baseless   
   > rhetoric.   
      
   I can, have done, as have many other posters here, and you just ignore   
   reasoning.   
      
   >>> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >>> on simply is not contained in its input.   
      
   >> Wrong.  It is.   
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   > If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive   
   > the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1.   
      
   There's nothing wrong with the input, as many others have explained to   
   you many times.  It is HHH and HHH1 which are defective.  They are the   
   same function and return different results?  Haha!   
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   > That you flat out lie about this can be construed   
   > as the "reckless disregard for the truth" that   
   > loses libel cases. It cannot be construed as any   
   > rebuttal of this self-evident truth.   
      
   I never lie on Usenet, as I have said before several times.  I care   
   deeply about the truth and truthfulness.  You lie continually in several   
   ways (one of them, right here, is your construction of a falsehood as a   
   "self-evident truth").  If you think I have committed libel, you are   
   welcome to sue me in a German court.  You would lose disastrously.   
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   > --   
   > Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   > My 28 year goal has been to make   
   > "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --   
   Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)