Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!news.in-chemnitz.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 14:38:30 -0000 (UTC) Organization: muc.de e.V. Message-ID: References: <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <4P0UP.670054$BFJ.182065@fx13.ams4> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 14:38:30 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2"; logging-data="23774"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de" User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (FreeBSD/14.2-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)) Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2025 12:26:48 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, 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. >>>> OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper >>>> where this alleged mistake was made. I would be surprised indeed if >>>> you'd even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it. Yet >>>> you're ready to denigrate his work. >>>> Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for >>>> insinuations. >>>>> /Flibble >>> It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof >>> that is wrongheaded. >> You are, in fact, quite wrong. The halting problem is in the field of >> mathematics. You are ignorant of this field, thus unable to contribute >> towards it, or make judgments about it. >> If you still think you are correct, and cannot point out a flaw in Alan >> Turing's original 1936 paper, perhaps you can find somebody qualified, >> i.e. with (at least) a first degree in mathematics, to back up your >> claim. > Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. I agree, it would be. Insisting on competence is entirely different. You and PO are insufficiently competent in mathematics to express your ideas coherently and persuasively. Finding a qualified mathematician willing to present those ideas coherently would enable them to be discussed and comprehensively dismissed. I put it to you that you will not find anybody with a maths degree willing to do this. You cannot point to a definite flaw in Turing's 1936 paper. All this suggests you, both of you, are simply wrong. >> Otherwise your credibility lies close to zero. > Ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. It is, yes. What's that got to do with anything, here? > /Flibble -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).