[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>> (b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of   
   >>>>>>>>>>> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input   
   >>>>>>>>>>> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself   
   >>>>>>>>>>> specifies when interpreted as a machine description.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property   
   >>>>>>>>>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.   
   > It has always your inability to pay 100% complete   
   > attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every   
   > single word.   
      
   No, your IQ is minisule, as you deceive yourself into thinking you   
   "know" things, when they have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo   
   actual logic for the fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to   
   ignore reality.   
      
   That is the height of stupidity.   
      
   >   
   > I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   > I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
      
   And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
      
   >   
   > I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD   
   > could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading   
   > the same words over-and-over many times.   
   >   
   > My first principles are not yet completely perfected.   
   >   
      
   But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new   
   system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing   
   systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"   
      
   Your ignorance is so great, you don't seem to understand this fact.   
      
   Your H may be a partial decider, but it can't be a Halt Decider, as that   
   modifier to the name adds the reqirement that the transformation rules   
   it uses must produce the same mapping as the already defined "Halting   
   Function", and you aren't allowed to redefine it.   
      
   Since your P halts, and you even admit that, H(P) returning 0 is just   
   incorrect, and no amount of attempts to justify it make the wrong answer   
   right, it just shows you don't understand that you are wrong.   
      
   All you are doing is proving that you self-imposed ignorance has turned   
   you into a pathological lying idiot that is too stupid to see his own   
   errors.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)