XPost: comp.theory   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/27/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/27/2025 3:12 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >> On 10/27/2025 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/27/2025 2:40 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/27/2025 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/27/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/27/2025 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/27/2025 1:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   >>>>>>>>> C programmer can easily determine:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Why would I look at this, rather than your complete work   
   >>>>>>>> that can execute?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> This is not even a complete program; there is no HHH definition.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Because I have changed the subject to this   
   >>>>>>> and will not discuss anything else because   
   >>>>>>> this supersedes and overrules anything else   
   >>>>>>> that anyone can ever say on this specific point.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> *It doesn't take a fucking genius to follow this*   
   >>>>>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   >>>>>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> And HHH doesn't correctly figure that out as proven by Kaz's code,   
   >>>>>> which you are on record as having agreed with (see below).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> Repeating a previously refuted point is less than no rebuttal, and   
   >>>> further confirms that you agree that Kaz's code proves that HHH   
   >>>> doesn't correctly "figure out what's up" as you have previously   
   >>>> admitted on the record:   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I am only referring to these fifteen lines   
   >>>   
   >>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   >>> C programmer can easily determine:   
   >>>   
   >>> int D()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.   
   >   
   > It is this mental execution trace that you keep   
   > erasing dip shit:   
   >   
   > HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   > again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
      
      
   Repeat of previously refuted point (see below).   
      
   Repeating a previously refuted point is less that no rebuttal.   
      
      
      
   On 10/26/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote:   
    > On 10/26/2025 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
    >> On 10/26/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:   
    >>> On 10/26/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
    >>>> On 10/26/2025 8:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
    >>>>   
    >>>> int DD()   
    >>>> {   
    >>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
    >>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
    >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
    >>>>    return Halt_Status;   
    >>>> }   
    >>>>   
    >>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
    >>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
    >>>>   
    >>>>   
    >>>   
    >>> And HHH figures it out incorrectly as proven by the code posted by   
   Katz.   
    >>>   
    >>   
    >> You can't even get his name correctly deep ship!   
    >> (A less contentious way of say dip shit).   
    >>> If you disagree, point out exactly where Kaz's code is in error.   
    >>>   
    >>> Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next   
    >>> post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record   
    >>> admission that Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH   
    >>> simulates will halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that   
    >>> the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation.   
    >   
    > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made no attempt to show how the   
    > code posted by Kaz proves that the DDD that HHH simulates will halt.   
    > Therefore:   
    >   
    > Let The Record Show   
    >   
    > That Peter Olcott   
    >   
    > Has *officially* admitted:   
    >   
    > That Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH simulates will   
    > halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that the input to HHH(DD)   
    > specifies a halting computation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)