Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:31:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <vvuedq$1ibhq$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 05:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43745e07502355f27fac5eed8a7d2487";
	logging-data="1650234"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dpZPIox3oSbA7bAdKajKx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xHfkt3ZLHeRU1WLxLKyGeU35QIg=
In-Reply-To: <vvudfg$1hi3q$4@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message

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.

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.

I prove this and you say blah blah blah but
Linz was right not paying any attention to
my proof of the fatal flaw and simply assuming
that I must be wrong about this.

All of the rebuttals of my work have as their
sole baseless basis that I must be wrong.

I must be wrong so let's see if the lame excuse
convinces him.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer