On 10/5/2025 9:39 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-05 20:23, olcott wrote:
On 10/5/2025 9:07 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-05 19:46, olcott wrote:
On 10/5/2025 5:01 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:36, olcott wrote:
On 10/5/2025 4:25 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-05 14:29, olcott wrote:
On 10/5/2025 3:13 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-05 13:06, olcott wrote:
On 10/5/2025 1:48 PM, Andr‚ G. Isaak wrote:
It doesn't matter how you implement your static data. Static >>>>>>>>>>> data is static data. Your messy implementation doesn't solve >>>>>>>>>>> the fundamental problem.
The subsequent function calls are not actual
function calls.
I didn't mention function calls. So I'm not sure why you think >>>>>>>>> this is relevant.
And what you say about writing to the tape of their UTM >>>>>>>>>>> simply isn't possible. I don't think you really understand >>>>>>>>>>> how UTMs work well enough to contemplate how to implement >>>>>>>>>>> things in them.
Your HHH takes a description of a D which it them simulates, >>>>>>>>>>> but D is a *Turing Machine*. That means it must be able to >>>>>>>>>>> run on its own, not just inside a UTM.
DD() can run on its own, yet when it does
run on its own its liar paradox like structure
ceases to exist giving it different behavior.
No. This is just your doublespeak. A given Turing Machine will >>>>>>>>> have identical behaviour for identical inputs regardless of >>>>>>>>> whether it is executed directly or run inside a UTM.
Not when it fucking calls the same fucking UTM
that simulates it. Why the fuck won't you
fucking pay attention to this fucking difference?
I have been paying attention and have seen you make this
assertion many times, but it is simply wrong. In fact, I would
say that it is axiomatically wrong. Cussing won't magically make >>>>>>> it correct.
Andr‚
int Simulate(ptr x)
{
ÿÿ x();
ÿÿ return 1;
}
Why would you name that function ?Simulate"? It doesn't simulate
anything. It simply calls the function passed to it.
int DD()
{
ÿÿ int Halt_Status = Simulate(DD);
ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
}
Do you understand that this DD will never stop running?
Yes. But that DD has nothing to do with the D in the Linz Proof.
Andr‚
Do you want to go through two proofs side-by-side?
If you insist that the DD proof must always exactly
correspond to the Linz proof then we can go through
two proofs side-by-side.
No. I am claiming that the above DD (please call it DD_UTM or some
such to distinguish it from DD) has nothing to do with the diagonal
case, not that there is some substantive difference between Linz's
version and yours/
Because it seems to me that you contradicted yourself
in your other replies we are back to the last step where
you agreed.
I already retracted the part of my post where I contradicted myself.
I am having enough trouble trying to get you to move forward; I
certainly have no intention of going *backwards*.
I have been through this so many thousands of times that I
am only willing to go though this using the method that I
am using. I may not respond to anyone else on any other
subject until this one subject has mutual agreement.
This "method" simply doesn't work and is therefore pointless. You're refusing to move forward until I agree to statements that I simply do
not accept.
If you "do not accept" semantically equivalent sentences
there are only three possibilities:
(a) You do not understand the semantic equivalence.
(b) They not semantically equivalent.
(c) You and everyone else has been playing head games.
If you do not agree that a simulating termination
analyzer that never aborts and a pure simulation
of the same input are not equivalent then we seem
to have (c).
I could ask you to explain in precise detail how
the behavior of the input by a pure simulator
would differ from the behavior of this same input
by a simulating termination analyzer that never
aborts.
If you really are just playing head games you would
find some excuse to refuse.
I gave my position in a recent post. Unless you have some
substantive comments to make about that position (actual comments; not socratic questions) there is nothing left to discuss.
Socratic questioning is the only way to divide
an honest dialogue from just playing head games
so that everyone can see which is which.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- PyGate Linux v1.0
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)