Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Heathfield Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 16:27:47 +0100 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 90 Message-ID: References: <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1vOTP.290843$6Qab.147432@fx07.ams4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 17:27:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="023cae9dc0d2c2b383f3d86e34fa8cd9"; logging-data="547540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ixKECaHLHi7pSUG1YCKSS2loRXgCyh2EtHK54TtI1PA==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wLh3Fwis4l4E6Uvm+eTZcpTaJsw= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4477 On 11/05/2025 16:14, olcott wrote: > On 5/11/2025 5:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 May 2025 20:07:50 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>> Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> >>>>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer >>>>>>>> science >>>>>>>> would spend years working on so few lines of code. >> >> >>>>>>> I created a whole x86utm operating system. >>>>>>> It correctly determines that the halting problem's otherwise >>>>>>> "impossible" input is actually non halting. >> >>>>>> You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this >>>>>> with Alan >>>>>> Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He >>>>>> published this in >>>>>> 1936 when he was just 24 years old. >> >>>>> Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a >>>>> mistake: >>>>> the category (type) error that I have described previously >>>>> in this >>>>> forum. >> >>>> What arrogant self-important ignorance!  Turing indeed solved >>>> the >>>> Entscheidungsproblem.  His procedure has been verified by >>>> hundreds of >>>> thousands of mathematicians over the last century, and none >>>> of them have >>>> found flaws in it. >> >>> Not at all: I have simply found a flaw that has been >>> overlooked all this >>> time.  Peter effectively found the same flaw but came at it >>> from a >>> different angle. >> >> That's laughable.  You're just a confused and deluded >> narcissistic crank. >> If you really believe you've found a flaw in Turing's paper, >> try writing >> it up properly (something which is beyond you) and submit it for >> publication to a reputable peer-reviewed mathematical journal. >> I'd be >> surprised if you even got a reply. >> >>>> It is overwhelmingly likely that your lack of mathematical >>>> training has >>>> led you to delude yourself about finding an error.  The same >>>> applies to >>>> Peter Olcott. >> >>> Nope, I have formally defined the error that doesn't >>> contradict Peter's >>> work. >> >> You don't even understand what "formally" means. >> >>> /Flibble >> > > You pay attention to irrelevant details. Perhaps. But you fail to pay attention to relevant details, such as the rules of the language you're using. But details are /so/ tedious, aren't they? > Flibble does understand the key essence of these > things better than you. I have seen no evidence of that. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within