[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> You then get this crasy idea (which is just a lie) that you can just   
   >> ignore the behavior of the CORRECT simulation of that input, as shown   
   >> by what the UTM does, and try to define it's incorrect simulation   
   >> (since it just stops short based on its own error) as being correct.   
   >>   
   >> And then, you show your problem by just refusing to even try to answer   
   >> with a justification on why your idea is correct.   
   >>   
   >> How can your H have "Correctly Simuated" and input that "Correctly   
   >> Spedifies" the behavior of the machine P, and get the different result   
   >> of that machine or the machine defined to do the correct simulation,   
   >> that is, the UTM.   
   >>   
   >> Remember, if UTM([x]) doesn't match the behavior of machine X, then it   
   >> just isn't a UTM.   
   >>   
   >> If your problem is that you encoding method can't produce a string   
   >> that allows for a UTM to exist, then you encoding method is just   
   >> insufficient, and you doomed yourself from the start, as the criteria   
   >> for semantic properties ALWAYS goes back to the original machine.   
   >>   
   >> All you are doing is proving you don't understand how "requirements"   
   >> work, as you just try to sweep them under the carpet with your lies.   
   >>   
   >> Sorry, all you are doing is proving your stupidity.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)