On 8/6/21 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2021 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/21 6:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2021 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/5/21 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/21 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't refuse to respond to rebuttals. I refuse to respond to
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also refuse to respond to dishonest dodges, changing the
>>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>>>>>> avoid addressing the point at hand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As soon as I prove my point people change the subject.
>>>>>>>>> It is counter-productive for me to tolerate this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>       if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>>         HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It took fifty exchanges for you to pay enough attention to
>>>>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>>>>> that int main(){ P(P); } never halts when we assume that H is
>>>>>>>>> only a
>>>>>>>>> pure simulator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you refuse to responde to rebuttals from me because I present
>>>>>>>> rebuttals so clear that you can't come up with an answer to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of your "rebuttals" are entirely anchored in your inability
>>>>>>> to pay
>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lack of responses shows you don't understand any of the theory
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you call a 'dishonest dodge' is me pointing out that the Nth
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> you start an arguement, and are trying to misuse a terminology,
>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not freaking matter that I misuse terminology that is a
>>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>>> dishonest dodge. What matters is that my halt decider is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you are misusing the word 'correct', or is it Halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Misuse of terminology is Fundamentally wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't misuse those words. If I misuse terminology that it
>>>>> material to
>>>>> my proof then there is a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, words like Turing Machine, or Halting, or Correct, or Equivalent,
>>>> or even Proof.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to really know what these are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> (1) Turing Machine, I use this term correctly no errors can be
>>> pointed out.
>>
>> No, you use the word, but claim things are equivalent that can not be.
>>
>> For instance, you claim that the Turing Machine for the H^ Machine
>> doesn't include a copy of the machine H, which it must.
>>
>>
>
> A RASP machine need not have any copy of its input.

WRONG.

Maybe we need to add Universal (as in Universl Simulator) to your list
of abused/misunderstood words.

Basic Software Engineering Principle, if a simulator is to be a
UNIVERSAL simulator, it must impose NO restrictions on the code of the
machine to be simulated, thus it can not require that machine to have a
copy of the simulator in it, thus the machine to be simulated needs to
be supplied in an independent virtual address space (yes, the
representation will be available to the simulator in its own address
space so it can get to it to simulate, but the simulated machine will
see a totally independent address space).

This implies at least a conceptual copy in H^, as it needs to take its
input from its own address space as its input, and create a new virtual
space to be run in.

A side effect of this is that your 'trick' of detecting recursion by
matching addresses doesn't work any more as there is no requirement that
the address of the simulator in its address space will when looked at in
the address space of the simulated machine also represents itself.

> A RASP machine is essentially a very simplified form of the x86
> language.

WRONG.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine

Compare that to the x86 execution model.

If the RASP is a simplified version of x86, then it shoud be easy to
write a simple cross translator that takes a RASP program and generates
x86 assembly code that it its equivalent. TRY IT (not writing a RASP
emulator, but translate RASP code inot x86 code).

Remember, in the RASP machine, each memory location is an arbitrary
precision number. A RASP machine is only as similar to an x86 machine as
8 is similar to infinity. Maybe you come from the tribe that can only
count to 3, and after that is 'many'.

There is ONE important simularity that is worth mentioning, unlike
Turing Machines where anything representable as a 'sub-machine' that can
be run will also be a true computation, RASP machines like x86, since
they intermix state with algorithm, do not guarantee that sub-machines
also represent a real computation, as they can hide state that breaks
this property.

This is one reason the Halting Problem is Stated in Terms of Turing
Machines, as that Computation Property is an important part of the
definition of the problem, The Halting Question is only applicable for
something that is a computation.

Also note, RASP machiines don't really have a separate 'input', a given
machine encodes both the algorithm and the input data together, so the
statement is a bit harder to form.

Unlike x86 machines though, a complete RASP machine will always be a
true computation, as it as all the information encoded in it to create
its answer, while x86 machines have the possiblity of interacting with
the external environment, and thus get data later, that needs to be
encapsulated as part of its input to make it a computation.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (2) Halting, I may have adapted the original definition, or not.
>>> According to André the final state of a computation must be reached for
>>> a computation to be considered as having halted.
>>
>> Right,
>>
>>>
>>> (3) Equivalent, I have adapted the original definition to apply to
>>> subsets of computations.
>>
>> There is no 'adapted', things either ARE equivalent or they are not.
>>
>
> It is unconventional to even refer to a subset of computations as
> equivalent across two different machine architectures. None-the-less the
> x86 language is Turing equivalent for the subset of computations that do
> not require more memory than is available.
>

That just shows you don't understand what equivalence means. The whole
concept of Turing Equivalence is to talk about very different
architectures, and it is FULLY defined for this case.

Yes, the finiteness of the x86 says it can't replecate EVERY machine,
but that finiteness is easily quantified. The key is that for the
machihnes within the domain of the equivalence, how that works is
PRECISELY defined, and your model doesn't met it.

>> Your 'Equivalent' to the H^ Turing machine which takes a representaion,
>> and makes a copy, doesn't make a copy. This makes it not the equivalent,
>> especially since you then use an address comparison test to find that
>> they are the same machine which can't actually be done in a Turing
>> Machine (maybe you can show your great knowledge of Truing Machine by
>> showing how you could do this with a REAL Turing Machine).
>>
>>>
>>> (4) Correct means that the condition of a conditional expression is
>>> satisfied.
>>
>> Halting == Non-Haltign is Correct???
>>
>> You don't even seem to understand what is a valid premise.
>
> Premises are never valid, they are true or false.
> If you want an honest dialogue then you will accept this correction.

As you say, a premise is something that is true of false.

>
>> You have
>> NEVER actually quoted an accepted premise to start with, but
>>
>
> I started working on getting my lingo straight today.
> Until I had a solution I could not risk being boxed into a corner by
> conventional concepts. I had to do all of my analysis from first
> principles, creating my own private language and the basis of slightly
> changing the meaning of conventional terms.
>

Sounds like a few years too late. It sounds so far like you have poluted
you mind with false concepts

>>>
>>> (5) Proof, here is what I mean by proof, it is an adaptation of the
>>> sound deductive inference model such that valid inference must only
>>> include true preserving operations.
>>
>> Again, 'adaptaion'? SOUND when you start from FALSE premises.
>>
>> As I said above, you don't understand what is a Correct presmis.
>>
>
> A correct proof is alsmost exactly like sound deductive inference.
> Mathematical logic totally screws up the notion of a correct proof in
> that its valid inference rules allow non-truth preserving operations.
> That is quite nuts.

That just shows that you don't really understand logic.

For instance, the statement If Machine P reaches its halt state in a
finite numbef of steps, it is a Halting Computation, is a valid deduction.

The fact that the premise, Machine P reaches its halt state in a finite
number of steps, might not be true in a given case, doesn't make the
arguement invalid. This is a simple proof by definition, and is the
basis to allow us to build up a set of rules to let us analyze systems.

it gives us a rule that if we can prove the premise, we can infer the
conclusion with a sound argument. The key is that a VALID argument, by
itself does not assert the conclusion, and maybe that is your problem

>
>>>
>>> By proof I mean the application of truth preserving inference steps to
>>> premises that are known to be true. Since mathematical logic has some
>>> inference steps that are not truth preserving these are ruled out.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
>>
>> First problem, Proof need to START with accepted truths. All your proofs
>> have started with CLAIM, that you try to justify by strained meaning of
>> words.
>>
>
> They must start with truths that are totally verified as completely true
> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the expression of language.

WRONG. Natural Languages are HORRIBLE at expressing truth. You can
create MANY illogical statements that seem to imply truth.

Truth IS, Truth IS what is actually True.

Maybe you should try to begin at your beginning and start with your
statements, AND your exact meaning of the words that build them, and
work on getting agreement.

Note, this goes back to your mis-use of language. The language you seem
to be using is NOT a consistent one, you have words change meaning mid
sentence.

For instance, a 'Pure Simulator' is in the theory, a simulator that
NEVER abort its simulation. You then try to create an item that is a
Pure Simulator until it makes its decision, but by the defition of a
Pure Simulator that is NOT a Pure Simulator, only something that acts
someone like one for awhile, but since it isn't ACTUALLY one, you can't
infer properties that require it to actually be a pure simulator (like
being able to replace a trace of the simulator with the simulatoin).

That is UNSOUND logic, as the inference rule has as a premise the the
simulator IS a Pure Simulator, and it isn't.

>
>> You do understand that your concept of All Truth is Provable doesn't
>> work for the field of Mathematics, and in fact this leads to
>> inconsistent logic system which leads to you system being subject to
>> that Principle of explosing.
>>
>
> This is a key error in the philosphical foundation of mathematics.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323866366_The_Notion_of_Truth_in_Natural_and_Formal_Languages
>
>
>> NOT using some of the
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Validity and Soundness
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
>>> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
>>> nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be
>>> invalid.
>>
>> For a proof to be valid, you need to use accepted rules of logical
>> inference. You need to start with a precise list of premises, and then
>> combine these with
>>
>
> I reject all of those accepted rules that are not truth preserving
> operations.

>
>>>
>>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
>>> of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
>>> unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>
>> And you keep on using FALSE premises, thus your arguements are UNSOUND.
>> You don't seem to understand this, as you never actually try to prove
>> your premises, thus you have no grounds to claim them to be true.
>>
>
> My premises are impossibly false because my premises are x86 code.

WRONG.

>
>> A Deductive Argument must start with PROVEN true premises, not just
>> claimed true.
>>
>
> Necessarily true premises.
>
>> 'Actually True' means you have to be able to actually show it is true.
>>
>>>
>>> // original definition of valid  (same as P → C)
>>>
>>> Material conditional
>>> p   q p → q
>>> T   T   T
>>> T   F   F
>>> F   T   T
>>> F   F   T
>>>
>>> Transforming the above to become truth preserving:
>>>
>>> The definition of valid is changed to:
>>> p   q   p [PROVES] q
>>> T   T        T
>>> T   F        F
>>> F   T        F
>>> F   F        F
>>
>> I guess this means all your arguments are not valid, as all your
>> arguments start with a false premise.
>>
>> Note, this confuses Valid with Soundness.
>>
>
> I have no need for a separate valid. A separate valid is only useful if
> you don't know that your premises are true.
>
>> The problem with this is that the REAL definition of valid allows you to
>> be able to prove that an argument would be valid even without knowing if
>> the premises are true.
>>
>> For example, This is a valid argument:
>>
>> John being a Big Boy implies that John is Big.
>>
>
> That is a taulogy.
>
>> This is a valid argument. If it turns out that John actually IS a Big
>> Boy, says we can then use this valid arguement to make the sound
>> arguement, John is a big boy, thus John is Big.
>>
>> Even if we later find out that John isn't a Big Boy, the first argument
>> is still valid.
>>
>>>
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
>>> that the conclusion is only true if and only if the premises are true.
>>
>> WRONG.
>>
>
> It can't be wrong this is a stipulative definition.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

If you stipute a definition that differs from the generally accepted
definition of the word, you have just removed from you arguement that
ability to use the normal definition.

IF you are stipulating a different definition of a 'valid arguement'
then you can NEVER claim that

>
>> Kitty is a black cat, since all black cats are cats, Kitty is a cat.
>>
>> This is a valid deductive argument.
>>
>
> No it is sound, not merely valid.

Only as sound as the rest of your arguments. Here is a breakdown.

P1: Kitty is a black Cat
P2: Black Cats are Cats
C: Kitty is a Cat.

Fact (see below): Kitty is a white Cat, so P1 is false.

Thus arguement, while VALID, is UNSOUND.

It is VALID, as IF the premises were true, then the logic is correct at
proving the conclusion.

It is UNSOUND, as P1 is not true, thus we can't use this argument to
prove the conclusion even though the conclusion is actually true.

We would need to create the equivalent argument based on white cats.

I think you need to go back to Logic 101, as you seem to be missing
fundamentals.

>
>> There is the case that Kitty might actually be a white cat, and thus the
>> conclusion is True, but there was a false premise. This makes it
>> unsound, but not invalid.
>>
>> The conclusion can be true even if the premise is not true. This is
>> easily true if an argument is of the form of specific to the genuine
>>
>>>
>>> All of the above is summed up as
>>> P [PROVES] C if and only if (True(P) ⊢ True(C) ∧ False(P) ⊢ False(C))
>>>
>>> modal operators are most often interpreted
>>> "□" for "Necessarily" and "◇" for "Possibly".
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
>>> (P [PROVES] C) ↔ (P ↔ □C)
>>>
>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be true on the basis that truth preserving
>>> operations are applied to premises that are verified as true: (P ↔ □C)
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If my misuse of terminology is immaterial to my proof then this is an
>>>>> side-issue that is irrelevant to my proof.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When people use irrelevant side-issues to avoid addressing the key
>>>>> point
>>>>> at hand this is a dishonest dodge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and that is another word you misuse, 'dishonest'. It is NOT
>>>> dishonest to point out an error in an arguement, even if it isn't the
>>>> point you are trying to focus on as long as it does relate to the
>>>> problem at hand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If an error is pointed out in the actual argument then this if valid.
>>> If an error is pointed that does not directly pertain to the argument
>>> then this is a dishonest dodge away from the point at hand.
>>>
>>
>> Almost all of your errors START with an initial claim of a premise that
>> is not true.
>
> My premises are the x86 source-code.

That isn't a premise. Source-code is not a Truth Bearer.

>
>> You have never (well, maybe only almost never) actually
>> gone back and tried to prove your initial claim, all you do is say it
>> has to be true by the meaning of the words (and never actually perform a
>> step by step proof for that, if you even could).
>>
>> Some times this error is because you change the meaning of a word
>> through the argument. Several times, you have claimed as a dishonest
>> dodge when I point out that your claim, while possibly true with one
>> meaning of the words, was NOT true with the meaning that you ware about
>> to use, because you have stated the same arguement
>>
>>>> YOU use dishonest dodges to avoid having to try to deal with the
>>>> multitude of errors in your logic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad you admit that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It shows you utter lack of knowledge in the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not show an utter lack of knowledge in the field.
>>>>
>>>> Whht, like the fact that you totally don't understand what a Turing
>>>> Machine or a Computation is? Or Haltimg, or even what a Proof is.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure you really understand what is Truth.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows a lack of complete knowledge in the field that can effect my
>>>>> credibility. This lack has no effect on the validity of my proof that
>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Only that just about every statement in you 'proof' is invalid or
>>>> unsound.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to know enough to know how badly you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> point out where you are going to in two steps change the meaning
>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>> word and still assume the arguement based on a different meaning
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> holds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS THE ONLY FREAKING DETAIL THAT COUNTS.
>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status of the input to H.
>>>>>>> Everything that bypasses this point is a dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, IF Halting is defined to be non-halting, then H(P,P) being
>>>>>> non-halting could be a correct answer in your world of inconsistent
>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting is defined as reaching the final state of the C function.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and when you run P(P) is does that.
>>>
>>> The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
>>> pertains the behavior of the input to P.
>>
>> INCORRECT.
>>
>>>
>>>       the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>>>       is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>>>       does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>>>       computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>>
>> READ THAT AGAIN,
>>
>> given the description of a Turing Machine M: Thus the input is the
>> description, and M is the actual Turing Machine that it is the
>> description of.
>>
>
> The problem is: Does the input to H halt on its input H(P,P).
> The input to H never halts on its input because it specifies infinitely
> nested simulation.

WRONG. READ IT AGAIN. Does M Halt, M is the actual Turing Machine (our
H^) the input is the representation.

>
>> Does M, ... perform a computation that eventually halts.
>>
>> Thus, it is the behavior of the ACTUAL Machine that matters.
>>
>
> It is the actual behavior of the machine that is encoded as a string and
> input to H. It is always only from the frame-of-reference of input to H.
> It is never from the frame-of-reference of independent execution.

Representations are NOT machines.

>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
> the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
> aborts its simulation.
>

Doesn't matter, the Machine the input was based on does. It is the
machine that matters, not an aborted simulation.

FAIL

> THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
> the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
> aborts its simulation.
>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
> the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
> aborts its simulation.
>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
> the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
> aborts its simulation.
>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
> the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
> aborts its simulation.
>
>> What is the input to H, it is the description of the Turing Machine P.
>> Thus what matter, the behavior of the ACTUAL Turing Machine P
>>
>
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address** how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
> No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?

A Turing Machine is NOT a machine address. Category Error.

>
> ** I told him this 50 times
>
>> Not, as you seem to want to try to claim, what happens inside the
>> partial simulation by H of the desciption of P.
>>
>> Can you understand those words????
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not halting is defined as never reaching the final state of the
>>>>> function
>>>>> while H is in pure simulator mode. Not halting must be defined in
>>>>> terms
>>>>> of never reaching the final state of the function to distinguish it
>>>>> from
>>>>> functions that had their simulation aborted.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. Not Halting is defined as never being able to reach the final
>>>> state of the function when fully run. The fact that a simulation
>>>> doesn't
>>>> get there because the simulation was stopped before it happened to get
>>>> there proves nothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
>>> pertains the behavior of the input to P.
>>
>>
>> See above.
>>>
>>>       the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>>>       is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>>>       does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>>>       computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>>>
>>> The input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
>>> aborts the simulation of this input.
>>
>> Doesn't matter, see above, P(P) does, so that is what matters.
>>>
>>> This is where you attention deficit disorder comes in. You can't seem to
>>> be able to pay attention to the steps that prove:
>>
>> Maybe you should learn to read English.
>>
>> As
>>
>>>
>>> the input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
>>> aborts the simulation of this input.
>>
>> If you modify that copy of H to not stop simulating (Keeping the copy of
>> H on the 'input' its original) then it does reach the halt, showing that
>> P(P) does Halt.
>>
>
> No nitwit there is no copy**, how freaking stupid can you be ?
> No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
> No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
> No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
> No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?

Only because your equivalence isn't correct. Your H and H^ are not
machines in the right relationship per the proof.

You need to understand that.

Your H isn't even a proper Halt Decider as it can't be given any
arbitrary 'Turing Machine' (equivalent).

>
> ** I told him this 50 times
>
> _P()
> [00000d02](01)  55          push ebp
> [00000d03](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
> [00000d05](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d08](01)  50          push eax       // push P
> [00000d09](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d0c](01)  51          push ecx       // push P
> [00000d0d](05)  e870feffff  call 00000b82  // call H
>
> The above code cannot possibly reach its final state
> The only freaking control flow instruction repeats the whole sequence.
> You must be diligently striving to be as disingenuous as possible.
>

Then you have provided a trace of that impossibility.

> Revelation 21:8 KJV
> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
> and brimstone: which is the second death.

Think about what YOU have said, and the ACTUAL definitions of the terms.

Remember, even a half truth is a lie.

You have said that you H exactly matches the Linz proof.

The Linz proof takes a copy.

You machine doesn't

How is not making a copy the exact copy of making a copy.

You have a lie in your statement.

Which statement that I have made is incorrect?

Do you NOT claim that your proof matches Linz template?

Do you claim that Linz doesn't make a copy?

Do you not claim that your proof doesn't make a copy?

How is not making a copy exactly like making a copy.

Maybe you need to repent from your Sin and let someone instruct you more
fully.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> THIS sort of 'Misuse of Terminology' is why your whole arguments isn't
>>>> worth the paper it is written on.
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase Sargent Shultz, YOU KNOW NOTHING.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to even know enough to see how idiodic your statements
>>>> sound.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>