Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Heathfield Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?= =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?= Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 06:41:47 +0100 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 57 Message-ID: <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me> References: <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org> <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me> <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me> <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me> <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me> <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 07:41:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a4c25fe67a6e1f50e61bb80ea4001874"; logging-data="3470014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5vY31LAk2F47/q69THJn3wp0Ww6gv6OH90uqNRHtPLA==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:eR2lGi7yFvJA3m+P6aZLVXMRV6k= In-Reply-To: <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Content-Language: en-GB On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield writes: >> On 22/05/2025 00:14, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/21/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > [...] >>>> Turing proved that what you're asking is impossible. >>>> >>> That is not what he proved. >> >> Then you'll be able to write a universal termination analyser that can >> correctly report for any program and any input whether it halts. Good >> luck with that. > > Not necessarily. Of course not. But I'm just reflecting. He seemed to think that my inability to write the kind of program Turing envisaged (an inability that I readily concede) is evidence for his argument. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. > Even if olcott had refuted the proofs of the > insolvability of the Halting Problem -- or even if he had proved > that a universal halt decider is possible And we both know what we both think of that idea. > -- that doesn't imply > that he or anyone else would be able to write one. Indeed. > I've never been entirely clear on what olcott is claiming. Nor I. Mike Terry seems to have a pretty good handle on it, but no matter how clearly he explains it to me my eyes glaze over and I start to snore. > [...] He has rarely, if ever, stated his claims clearly enough > for anyone to be sure what he's claiming. Of course I could > have missed something, since I've read less than 1% of what he > writes. He has been urged to summarise his complete argument on a Web page. Several times, in fact. He generally responds with a nonsensical copy and paste. > But if you took everything he's posted here and combined it into > a single text file, I'll bet it would compress *really* well. ;-) -- 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