Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 12/05/2025 02:12, olcott wrote:
<snip>

No one here is using any actual reasoning
in their rebuttals of my work.

I have already shown several places where your 'work' violates the rules of its implementation's language standard, which thus absolves the implementation from any obligation to echo in its output the intention you thought you were weaving into the code.
Wake me when you've fixed up the code.

They rely
on dogma, misdirection, deflection and the
strawman error.
 The last three methods are dishonest.

And basing your claims on the output of dodgy code /isn't/?
--
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