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

On 10/27/2025 12:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/26/2025 11:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-27, olcott  wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2025 9:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-26 19:58, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2025 8:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And
>>>>> *Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit*
>>>>
>>>> How the hell is that a response to the word 'And'? At least quote
>>>> enough
>>>> material that its apparent what you are responding to.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> He is trying to get away with spamming me with
>>> deceit so I erase all of it and keep ridiculing
>>
>> Aha!
>>
>> So you finally appreciate how it looks like spamming when you are on the
>> receiving end of these god-forsaken x86utm execution traces!
>>
>> You pathetic sack of shit, unable to respond to /code/!
>>
>
> Here is the code
>
> 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;
> }
>
> 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)

>> Calling people dishonest while dodging findings from an independent
>> third party review of your apparatus.
>>
>
> The crux of everything that can be said about
> HHH(DD) is summed up in the above 15 lines.
>
>> You are a disgrace to STEM.
>>
>
> I am not the one dishonestly dodging

Yes you are:


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)