Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:28:55 +0000
Organization: Not very much
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <vr6n77$1krqv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvi94$3tk5h$1@dont-email.me> <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
 <0672fec6cb2a5c56fd674bbbb3d2b2101c8f295f@i2pn2.org>
 <vr185f$1aah4$1@dont-email.me> <87bju3jswc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vr2d01$27fvs$1@dont-email.me> <vr2ju5$2deaa$3@dont-email.me>
 <vr3jik$392v0$1@dont-email.me> <vr4lf9$48ff$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 15:28:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1232a432949382c333c8a8d34e2dd53e";
	logging-data="1732447"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gQU7KXFYXeLSqBHCb2PaU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dYh4wFBfZ6P3P467niou9gbz7pw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr4lf9$48ff$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2983

On 15/03/2025 19:46, olcott wrote:
[I wrote, re the Goldbach Conjecture:]
>>>>      Perhaps [just about] worth noting that a sufficiently long
>>>> [but not "infinite"] brute force attack on the GC [and many other
>>>> similar conjectures] would resolve the issue. 
>>> Not if GC is true and the proof cannot algorithmically
>>> compressed into a finite sequence of steps.
>>      You didn't read, or didn't understand, the rest of my article,
>> which explains that, indeed, only a finite number of steps is needed.
>> Read on before replying:
> I always respond to the first mistake.
> I did notice that you qualified this later on.

	Perhaps you should have waited for the first mistake?  I didn't
"qualify" my statement, rather I explained why a perhaps-surprising [at
first glance] claim is in fact correct.  [I have no intention of having
a "'tis", "'tisn't" to-and-fro on this, so there is no need to reply,
and if you do, I shall ignore it.]

[... explanation snipped ...]

-- 
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Coleridge-Taylor