[continued from previous message]   
      
   > is an incorrect requirement within the definition:   
   > *Deciders are a pure function of their inputs*   
   >   
      
   Doesn't follow.   
      
   That H generates a 0 result with the input P only says that is what H   
   computes.   
      
   That doesn't make it the correct answer for a Halt Decider.   
      
   You are just proving you (1) don't know what you are talking about, and   
   (2) don't really care, as you don't try to learn, and thus (3) you are   
   just proving that you are a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying idiot.   
      
   Why do you think the requirement is not a pure function of its input?   
      
   Do you even know what that means?   
      
   The Halting function maps THIS P (the one based on your H that says H(P)   
   -> 0) to Halting.   
      
   IT maps EVERY possible machine/input to Halting or Not Halting based   
   solely on that defined machine/input.   
      
   Thus, it *IS* a "Pure Function" of that input.   
      
   All you are doing is proving how low your intelegence is as you keep on   
   repeating your errors, and just refuse to even try to actually defend   
   your idea, you just repeat the statement that proves you wrong.   
      
   You are likely down to -50 IQ by now, by any scale that measure   
   logically ability.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)