Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:25:22 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <100l9b4$30b4k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me>
 <100h052$22oen$3@dont-email.me> <100ha34$24lfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me> <100k62d$2p028$1@dont-email.me>
 <100k6cj$2ocih$1@dont-email.me> <100ktad$2tae8$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:25:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ac37daa3784824b3058ecc768e4deff";
	logging-data="3157140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nBXCdFyce98WcCTZYR2AK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qZYS61kmxyx+NMJ0Vj6ZrWZqazo=
In-Reply-To: <100ktad$2tae8$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 21.mei.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
> On 5/21/2025 4:28 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 21/05/2025 10:23, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-20 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:24:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-18 20:19:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A straw man fallacy is a (usually) correct refutation of something.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The strawman fallacy is stipulated to be incorrect
>>>> that is what the word "fallacy" means.
>>>
>>> True, but the incorrectness is in the atribution of the claim,
>>> not in the refutation. If there is a fallacy in the refutation
>>> then it is called by some other term, depending on the what is
>>> wrong there.
>>>
>>>>>> It seems quite stupid to say that an error of reasoning
>>>>>> is correct. You might as well have said all dogs are cows.
>>>>>
>>>>> A straw man fallacy is not an error of reasoning. It is a false
>>>>> attribution of the claim that is refuted.
>>>>
>>>> Any attempt to refute X by changing the subject to Y
>>>> is dishonest.
>>>
>>> Yes, but that hasn't stopped you.
>>>
>>>>>> *The rules of correct reasoning define it as incorrect*
>>>>>
>>>>> If the correctness of an inference depends on who presented the
>>>>> claim the those "rules of correct reasoning" are unsound.
>>>>
>>>> How many times do I have to repeat this before you
>>>> notice ALL of the words that I said?
>>>
>>> You can never find out because you can't determine what I have noticed
>>> and what not.
>>
>> I have suggested to him that he puts ALL of the words --- all the 
>> important ones, anyway --- on a Web site so that he doesn't feel 
>> obliged to post reams and reams of copy-paste over and over. It would 
>> be one single place where he can make himself abundantly clear.
>>
>> But of course he can't afford to be abundantly clear, because if he 
>> nails his point down in stone it will be too easy for his readership 
>> to point out all the holes.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> If it too difficult for people to understand
> that DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
> then this stuff is simply over-your-head.
> 

Why repeating this when we already agree that HHH fails to reach the end 
of the halting program? No HHH exists that is able to simulate itself. 
DDD is irrelevant. Because of this failure of HHH, it often reports 
false negatives, as in:


        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

HHH halts but reports that it does not halt.