Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/12/2025 11:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 10:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 03:48, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He
knows very little C and the code is crap, but that/is/  a
straw man -- it's the simplest part of his argument to
fix.

>

>
Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>

>
Do you really think that nit picky details

>
Are important? Yes.
>
Are important to you? No.
>

can refute the gist of what I am saying

>
No. If you won't listen to Alan Turing's refutation, you're sure as hell not going to listen to mine.
>

>
All of the conventional halting problem proofs
have several fatal flaws. That you simply ignore
my proof of these fatal flaws is not actually
any rebuttal.

>
No, your "Proof" is full of fatal flaws, the first being you don't even know the definiton of most of the terms you use.
>

>
Every conventional halting problem proof has as
its most fundamental basis an input that can
actually do the opposite of whatever their
termination analyzer reports.

>
WHich is what it does.
>

 I proved that is impossible.