Page 3 of 3
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:48 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:46 pm
Anything that H can {say, predict, believe or guess}
that D will do is always contradicted by D.
Fuck off. idiot.
Go ahead and contradict the Boolean I have in my head. Is it True or False?
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 pm
by PeteOlcott
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.
You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:04 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 pm
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.
You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.
Fuck off. Idiot.
You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:09 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:04 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 pm
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.
You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.
Fuck off. Idiot.
You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.
Case in point.
Your name indicates that your primary goal is to
thwart any honest dialogue.
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:14 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:09 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:04 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:03 pm
When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.
You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.
Fuck off. Idiot.
You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.
Case in point.
Your name indicates that your primary goal is to
thwart any honest dialogue.
Oh no! The liar's Paradox!
Who's the liar? Such mystery!
Am I the liar?!?
Is Olcott the liar ?!?!
How would we ever know?
The only one who can't solve it is Olcott himself.
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:19 pm
by PeteOlcott
You did have a sequence of replies that were reasonable and
addressed the points that I made.
When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.
Re: Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:23 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:19 pm
You did have a sequence of replies that were reasonable and
addressed the points that I made.
When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.
Every time you realize how trivial the rebutal was you begins spouting nonsense.