Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Analysis of =?utf-8?Q?Flibble=E2=80=99s?= Latest: Detecting vs.
 Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 22:23:22 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 07:23:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dae22f89fe428551773c9395a452d8f1";
	logging-data="3481913"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UG+7rHrtI3qlTKDqFF0Rs"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t1D5utSgptsDUhpS1Uwiuza5VRw=
	sha1:akENww1g117DDMHT8Xt+GVjUM70=

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

I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming.
I think that some years ago he claimed to have created an actual
Turing Machine that acts as a universal halt decider (which he
never published).  More recently, he seems to be claiming merely
that he's found a fatal flaw in the widely accepted proof (not a
claim to be taken seriously if he truly doesn't understand proof
by contradiction).  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.

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.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */