Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 22/05/2025 06:23, Keith Thompson wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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