[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>> So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong,   
   >>>>>>>> just repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just   
   >>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> (2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying   
   >>>>>>> finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs   
   >>>>>>> is outside of the scope of computation.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by   
   >>>>>> such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Transform finite string   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you   
   >>>> can't understand.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> P simulated by H derives recursive simulation   
   >>   
   >> But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.   
   >>   
   >   
   > (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   > inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   > {Accept, Reject} values   
   >   
   > P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   > final halt state Dumbo.   
   >   
      
   Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.   
      
   The question is about the Semantic Property of the Program P which your   
   input is supposedly the proper encoding of (our you lied about it in you   
   claim you followed the proof).   
      
   Since that encoding fully specifies the EXACT sequence of steps that   
   this program P will go to, the fact that your H(P) returns 0, means   
   those steps end up at a halting state, and thus the CORRECT answer that   
   H should have returned to be correct as a halt decider, and thus your   
   claims are proven wrong.   
      
   All you are doing is confirming that you are just a stupid pathological   
   liar that is so mentally disabled that it has become impossible for you   
   to learn about this subject.   
      
   Sorry, you have killed your reputation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)