You mean*dbush is now dishonored in his deceit*
On 10/26/2025 8:49 PM, dbush wrote:
*dbush is now dishonored in his deceit*
You mean
On 10/26/2025 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:Katz.
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
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.
There's no deceit*Sure there is any C programmer can see this*
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.
*It did take me 22 years to get it that simple*--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
*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:Katz.
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
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.
On 10/26/2025 9:43 PM, dbush wrote:Thanks for the confirmation
<repeat of previously refuted point>
You're just further confirming that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation as you've admitted on the record:
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,075 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 90:34:03 |
| Calls: | 13,798 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,989 |
| D/L today: |
5,324 files (1,535M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,438,211 |