Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 07/05/2025 18:09, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 07 May 2025 18:03:01 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 

On 07/05/2025 17:17, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
<nonsense snipped>
>
Nothing left.

 Nonsense? Nothing left? Yes, it is YOU that has no argument.

You're right; I /don't/ have an argument, but that's because I don't need one, as I'm perfectly happy to accept Turing's argument, which makes perfect sense not only to me but to almost everybody taking part in this discussion, the two exceptions being you and Mr Olcott.
You, on the other hand, /do/ have an argument. It's thin, wooly, and so full of holes that you have to nail spurious definitions all over it.
You've made a rod for your own back because now you're stuck with defending an indefensible position, whereas all I have to do is point to Turing's paper, QED.
--
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