Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:36:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <100l9vu$30aak$2@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>
 <100l9b4$30b4k$1@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 21:36:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7faeabb3f4a2e362069c5f0f1728441c";
	logging-data="3156308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DzvCrpb9xsY61w8r9slZF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:De/sV4P6jWZMhYOota32AjG1Ih8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250521-10, 5/21/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100l9b4$30b4k$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4810

On 5/21/2025 2:25 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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. 

Since you know that is a damned lie why say it?


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer