XPost: comp.theory   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/27/2025 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/27/2025 6:05 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > *plonk*   
   >   
      
   Liar paradox? You halt... ;^)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)