Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years

Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:09 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

*two dozen people were simply wrong*

>
Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
more interesting.
>

 This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself.
Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
another reply.
 That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS
WRONG.
 Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that H is correct to reject DD as non-halting no matter what the
behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is.
 

Similarly:
Because HH correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that it is correct to reject HH as non-halting no matter what the
behavior of the directly executed HH(DD,DD) is.