Simplified Halting Problem Proof Rebuttal

[Skepdick]

You just don't have an actual clue do you?
I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about loops.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

I've seen your source code/strategy.

You are hung up on execution trace analysis. Your misunderstanding is so deeply profound I can't be bothered.

You are absolutely incapable of abstract reasoning.

[PeteOlcott]

You just don't have an actual clue do you?
I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about loops.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

I've seen your source code/strategy.

You are hung up on execution trace analysis. Your misunderstanding is so deeply profound I can't be bothered.

You are absolutely incapable of abstract reasoning.

You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.

[Skepdick]

You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.

I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.

This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.

[PeteOlcott]

You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.

I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.

This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.

I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.

[Skepdick]

You cannot possibly ground any rebuttal of my work in any complete
and consistent reasoning. I suspect that you already know this.

I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.

This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.

I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.

I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebutted

[PeteOlcott]

I can ground the rebuttal of any of your work in a computational model that's more powerful than the one you are using.

This is a trivial fact of computation. A more powerful computer can solve the halting problem for all less powerful computers.

I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.

I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebutted

If you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.

[Skepdick]

I am saying that you lack the knowledge to form a clear and complete rebuttal of my work.

I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebutted

If you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.

Correct. As I already did.

[PeteOlcott]

I am saying that I have more knowledge than you, hence your work is rebutted

If you had the knowledge to provide a clear, consistent and complete rebuttal of my work you already would have.

Correct. As I already did.

I know that you never did because I know that no one ever did.
What I usually see is a list of false assumptions.

[Skepdick]

I know that you never did because I know that no one ever did.
What I usually see is a list of false assumptions.

Please show me the source code for the decider which distinguishes true from false assumptions.

What does (True ≡ False) evaluate to?

Allow me to start.... Booleans are closed under material equivalence (≡); right?

Why does True ≡ False map to "False"; and not "True"?

Seems like an arbitrary choice, right? Lets choose differently...

Code: Select all

[1] pry(main)> def ≡(x,y)
  if [true, false].permutation.to_a.include?([x,y])
    return true
  else
    return x == y
  end
=> :≡
[2] pry(main)> ≡(true, false)
=> true
[3] pry(main)> ≡(1,2)
=> false
[4] pry(main)> ≡("a","a")
=> true

[PeteOlcott]

The assumption that termination analyzer H must report on the behavior of
the direct execution of D(D) when D has been defined to do the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns is proven to be a logically impossible
thus invalid requirement.