Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 00:14:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0fa65653b72b34509e463e86740b0015341f7440@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvuala$1hi3q$1@dont-email.me> <vvubuk$1deu5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvudfg$1hi3q$4@dont-email.me> <vvuedq$1ibhq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 04:26:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="127709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vvuedq$1ibhq$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/12/25 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 10:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/05/2025 03:48, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his 
>>>>> knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He
>>>>> knows very little C and the code is crap, but that/is/  a
>>>>> straw man -- it's the simplest part of his argument to
>>>>> fix.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it 
>>>> has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is 
>>>> precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think that nit picky details
>>
>> Are important? Yes.
>>
>> Are important to you? No.
>>
>>> can refute the gist of what I am saying
>>
>> No. If you won't listen to Alan Turing's refutation, you're sure as 
>> hell not going to listen to mine.
>>
> 
> All of the conventional halting problem proofs
> have several fatal flaws. That you simply ignore
> my proof of these fatal flaws is not actually
> any rebuttal.

No, your "Proof" is full of fatal flaws, the first being you don't even 
know the definiton of most of the terms you use.

> 
> Every conventional halting problem proof has as
> its most fundamental basis an input that can
> actually do the opposite of whatever their
> termination analyzer reports.

WHich is what it does.

> 
> I prove this and you say blah blah blah but
> Linz was right not paying any attention to
> my proof of the fatal flaw and simply assuming
> that I must be wrong about this.

No, you just prove that you don't know what you are talking about and 
try to make a prove that is full of category errors and just out and out 
lies.

> 
> All of the rebuttals of my work have as their
> sole baseless basis that I must be wrong.

No, their basis is that you ARE wrong becausee you ignore the DEFINITIONS.

> 
> I must be wrong so let's see if the lame excuse
> convinces him.
> 

No, you ARE wrong because you don't do the right things, because you 
don't know what the words mean.

All you are doing is proving your ignorance.