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

On 11/05/2025 16:14, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 5:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

On Sat, 10 May 2025 20:07:50 +0000, 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.

>

What arrogant self-important ignorance!  Turing indeed solved the
Entscheidungsproblem.  His procedure has been verified by hundreds of
thousands of mathematicians over the last century, and none of them have
found flaws in it.

>

Not at all: I have simply found a flaw that has been overlooked all this
time.  Peter effectively found the same flaw but came at it from a
different angle.

>
That's laughable.  You're just a confused and deluded narcissistic crank.
If you really believe you've found a flaw in Turing's paper, try writing
it up properly (something which is beyond you) and submit it for
publication to a reputable peer-reviewed mathematical journal.  I'd be
surprised if you even got a reply.
>

It is overwhelmingly likely that your lack of mathematical training has
led you to delude yourself about finding an error.  The same applies to
Peter Olcott.

>

Nope, I have formally defined the error that doesn't contradict Peter's
work.

>
You don't even understand what "formally" means.
>

/Flibble

>

 You pay attention to irrelevant details.

Perhaps. But you fail to pay attention to relevant details, such as the rules of the language you're using.
But details are /so/ tedious, aren't they?

Flibble does understand the key essence of these
things better than you.

I have seen no evidence of that.
--
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