Sujet : Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 19. May 2025, 03:08:24
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <100e3qo$1d7a1$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 19/05/2025 02:24, olcott wrote:
It was stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD.
That's all right then.
It's stipulated that you are correct.
It's stipulated that anyone correcting you is stupid, incompetent, and dishonest. And because you've stipulated it, it must be true, right?
Yes, you can 'stipulate' that HHH acts as you believe it to act and proves what you think it proves, but that doesn't make it so.
No need to check every little punctuation mark.
In a sense, this /is/ about every little punctuation mark, because this is about forging your case in steel. You've had more than enough time to get every jot and tittle right and to make your case convincing to even the most sceptic of opponents.
To defend your case by saying 'It was stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD' is to claim that you must be right because you think you're right. Do you really not see how weak a case that is? Frankly, it's pathetic.
If you had anything worth saying, you would be able to set out your case clearly and to answer every criticism with lucid and relevant reasoning instead of spouting out kilobyte upon kilobyte of word salad, smearing it all over, and calling your critics dishonest and incompetent.
Instead of bad-mouthing your opponents, try listening to them occasionally.
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within