Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 21. May 2025, 08:55:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <100k0u9$2o3tj$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2025-05-20 15:34:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/20/2025 2:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 20/05/2025 07:51, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-19 16:52:29 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
<snip>
Every single one of your points is either wrong or not a counter-
argument: you've got nothing.
Some of them are obviously counter arguments. Saying that they are
wrong without finding any error does not convince wnyone whose
opinion matters.
Perhaps he's stipulated that you're wrong, in which case he's got you over a barrel. :-)
I am ONLY talking about how HHH(DDD) meets the above
Not in this thread. You have not even mentioned HHH or DDD.
-- Mikko
Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input
Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input