Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 17:58:19 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <v3fges$2rlrn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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>
 <v3fe4u$2r8b7$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffk9$2rh8f$2@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 17:58:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7400557857026e3b66e59a6887e93b1d";
	logging-data="3004279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JlLDChnLCSVS1Veh5eUBk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NHkg1d4/KwYNbMlvfq0nrx9ZNVI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v3ffk9$2rh8f$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2996

Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:44 schreef olcott:
> On 6/1/2024 10:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I am going to simply ignore your disingenuous replies.
> HH(DD,DD) halts as an empirical fact.
> 

Just like DD halts as an empirical fact.