quentron.com

[lumen]

Well I'm very happy you are correct.
Now that I know that I can simply change the output of something and this changes the results, I am going to add another zero on the top of that 100W light bulb and it should change the output to 1000W after the input of 100W.
This is so cool, in fact in the summer, I will add a "-" in front of the 100W and I will get -100W out to help cool my house.
Is this called the sarkeizen rule ?
I really didn't think this worked!
But it's good that you are correct that simply changing the sign of the output actually does change the results.
It really is a new world out there.

[sarkeizen]

Well I'm very happy you are correct.
Now that I know that I can simply change the output of something and this changes the results

As usual you're being so vague and stupid and whiny.   The execution path of WillThisEndOnSelf() changes on the basis of the output of WillThisEnd() but the entire function of WillThisEnd() is to determine the execution path of the program.  One you realize this the idea that WillThisEnd() can not be written to work 100% correctly should not come as too much of a surprise.

I am going to add another zero on the top of that 100W light bulb and it should change the output to 1000W

Argument by false analogy.  The entire function of the light bulb is not to mimic the behavior which is written on it's side. 

In addition to sucking at math and programming.  Arguing isn't something you do well either.  At LEAST know the formal and informal logical flaws.

It's also amusing that what you're doing is arguing against "proof by contradiction' but maybe that's just something written in a book and the rest of us really need to "think for ourselves" instead of using LOGIC.  ROFL.

And again, I ask now that I've dealt with your "What's actually failing" argument and your "Light bulb" argument.  Are you going to concede this point?

@Bruce_TPU - I've attached a colouring page for you.  If you don't mind can you use it for your next original creation?  You are such a creative young man and I think it's important that you express yourself.

[lumen]

As usual you're being so vague and stupid and whiny.   The execution path of WillThisEndOnSelf() changes on the basis of the output of WillThisEnd() but the function of WillThisEnd() is to determine the execution path of the program.  The idea that WillThisEnd() can not be written 100% correctly should not come as too much of a surprise.Argument by false analogy.  The function of the light bulb is not to mimic the behavior which is written on it's side. 

In addition to sucking at math and programming.  Arguing isn't something you do well either.  At LEAST know the formal and informal logical flaws.

It's also amusing that what you're doing is arguing against "proof by contradiction' but maybe that's just something written in a book and the rest of us really need to "think for ourselves" instead of using LOGIC.  ROFL.

@Bruce_TPU - I've attached a colouring page for you.  If you don't mind can you use it for your next original creation?  You are such a creative young man and I think it's important that you express yourself.

Your stating fiction! I'm starting to think you never followed your code through.

There are only to results of your program "WillThisEndOnSelf()"

1: False , when the program checked by "WillThisEnd(program)" never ends.
2: program hangs , when the program checked by "WillThisEnd(program)" ends, which causes the program "WillThisEndOnSelf()" to hang up.

NOW
There are only two results from "WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program));

1: False. which is the correct result because the true produced from WillThisEnd(program) caused the program to hang and never end.
2: program hangs.

So now, if you construct it:

"WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program))"

There are only two results.

1: False,
2: True,

Both of which are correct!
Your problem is you are losing the scope of what WillThisEnd(program) is actually checking.

See, you just need to fix your broken program.

[sarkeizen]

Yawn.  I love how this is annoying you.  Also I figured you would have gotten here sooner.

So now, if you construct it:

"WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf(program))"

Is the call to WillThisEnd() called from inside WillThisEndOnSelf() still failing the stated requirements? Yep.

Then this argument fails the deterministic requirement of the halting problem.  That is it doesn't ALWAYS, predict the correct answer.  The idea that a program can *sometimes* correctly predict the output of a program isn't exactly news.

Again, you agreed to this.  Sorry if you're wrong.

Anything else?

Bruce_TPU I've attached another place you can showcase your talent.

[lumen]

Yawn.  I love how this is annoying you.  Also I figured you would have gotten here sooner.Is the call to WillThisEnd() called from inside WillThisEndOnSelf() still failing the stated requirements? Yep.

Then this argument fails the deterministic requirement of the halting problem.  That is it doesn't ALWAYS, predict the correct answer.  The idea that a program can *sometimes* correctly predict the output of a program isn't exactly news.

Again, you agreed to this.  Sorry if you're wrong.

Anything else?

Bruce_TPU I've attached another place you can showcase your talent.

Nope!

To argue with a looser that does not understand his own code, is totally a waste of my time.