XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.ai.philosophy
From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com

On 10/26/2025 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/26/2025 9:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>>
>> There's no deceit in the fact that you admitted on the record that the
>> input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation:
>
> *Sure there is any C programmer can see this*
>
> 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.

Repeat of previously refuted point as shown below that you dishonesty
tried to hide by erasing.

Are there no depths to which you'll sink to hide your lies?

>
> *It did take me 22 years to get it that simple*
> *21 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, 6 days to be exact*
>>
>> 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)