Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Analysis_of_Flibble=e2=80=99s_Latest:_Detecting_vs._S?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?imulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 02:24:59 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$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> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 03:25:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1600c631e0f6bf9ca6280a37ec34ca0b";
	logging-data="3948993"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KEN7gC9qJuR83+Xcf1L4BLdMuZQvJuuE="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4OyGYGTqY5kJwcRFok03cI6VWMo=
In-Reply-To: <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>

On 22/05/2025 06:41, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 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.

Hey, it's the way I tell 'em!

Here's what the tabloids might have said about it, if it had made the front pages when the story broke:

   COMPUTER BOFFIN IS TURING IN HIS GRAVE!

   An Internet crank claims to have refuted Linz HP proof by creating a
   Halt Decider that CORRECTLY decides its own "impossible input"!
   The computing world is underwhelmed.

Better?  (Appologies for the headline, it's the best I could come up with.)

Mike.

> 
>> [...] 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.
> 
> ;-)
>