Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3fe4u$2r8b7$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 17:18:54 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: <v3fe4u$2r8b7$1@dont-email.me> References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org> <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org> <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org> <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me> <v3elpv$2mjca$1@dont-email.me> <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:18:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7400557857026e3b66e59a6887e93b1d"; logging-data="2990439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186pLC1Gd5vNjsBwdDWCipF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:FiVRnGqDDUS/EF3PikWdxqMYpq8= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2569 Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:09 schreef olcott: > On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> *two dozen people were simply wrong* >> >> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve >> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are >> more interesting. >> > > This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself. > Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in > another reply. > > That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that > the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS > WRONG. > > Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive > simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively > proves that H is correct to reject DD as non-halting no matter what the > behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is. > Similarly: Because HH correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively proves that it is correct to reject HH as non-halting no matter what the behavior of the directly executed HH(DD,DD) is.