Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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 07:44:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <20d5f8f0f1f99479cd2b871afbf89147b8f3095d@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>
 <0fa65653b72b34509e463e86740b0015341f7440@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuico$1j6s0$1@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 11:47:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="172461"; 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: <vvuico$1j6s0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/13/25 12:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 11:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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 proved that is impossible.
> 

No, you didh't, You proved your POOPS is impossible, which is why you 
arguement is so full of it.