Re: [PO] Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: Simon G Best (s.g.best_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:28:38 +0000 (UTC)

Here is the proof that you are a liar.

But first, let's punish you some more anyway :-)

Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4130B2EA.5000909@btopenworld.com...
>
>>You obviously need some more punishment, so:
>>
>>String B: "String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid
>>statement."
>>
>>String C: "String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid
>>statement."
>>
>>String B will never be proven to constitute a true, valid statement.
>>
>>What about string C?
>
> String B is not a statement at all due to its infinitely recursive structure.
> String C would be a true statement.

They're exactly the same string. Try again.

[...]

And now onto your lie.

> The kookiest thing that I heard was probably the guy that proved
> that no automobiles can ever possibly operate properly specifically
> because they can be made to not operate properly.

Did he /really/ 'prove', or even claim to prove, any such thing?

> All that I has
> to do was to substitute his reference to My Halt Analyzer with the
> term Automobile.

No. As you clearly admit here, you had to change what he said to make
it seem that he was claiming something he simply wasn't claiming.

You are clearly now a proven liar. This is proven by your own admission
to having changed what he actually claimed.

Simon

Relevant Pages
Loading