Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 12:44:54 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <vvv4am$1o55v$1@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> <vvuedq$1ibhq$2@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 11:44:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="69576f0644f413b581cc430fda63c863";
	logging-data="1840319"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RWFdTNCgz4hLWJ9AqqkWo"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zyYJc41dEJcbSntMlv6lphR9iMg=

On 2025-05-13 03:31:05 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

You have never proven any fatal flaw or anything else. The nearest you
have ever come to is a definition of what a proof is but you have never
presented anything that satisfies (or looks like an attempt to sarisfy)
your definition of proof.

-- 
Mikko