Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 06:41:47 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 07:41:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a4c25fe67a6e1f50e61bb80ea4001874";
	logging-data="3470014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5vY31LAk2F47/q69THJn3wp0Ww6gv6OH90uqNRHtPLA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eR2lGi7yFvJA3m+P6aZLVXMRV6k=
In-Reply-To: <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible.
>>>>
>>> That is not what he proved.
>>
>> Then you'll be able to write a universal termination analyser that can
>> correctly report for any program and any input whether it halts. Good
>> luck with that.
> 
> Not necessarily.

Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think that 
my inability to write the kind of program Turing envisaged (an 
inability that I readily concede) is evidence for his argument. 
Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

> Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the
> insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had proved
> that a universal halt decider is possible

And we both know what we both think of that idea.

> -- that doesn't imply
> that he or anyone else would be able to write one.

Indeed.

> I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.

Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, but 
no matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze over and 
I start to snore.

> [...] He has rarely, if ever, stated his claims clearly enough
> for anyone to be sure what he's claiming.  Of course I could
> have missed something, since I've read less than 1% of what he
> writes.

He has been urged to summarise his complete argument on a Web 
page. Several times, in fact. He generally responds with a 
nonsensical copy and paste.

> But if you took everything he's posted here and combined it into
> a single text file, I'll bet it would compress *really* well.

;-)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within