Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 12:26:48 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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).