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

On 12/05/2025 03:09, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 8:07 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 00:19, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>
<snip>
>

I am happy with my final solution; I glanced over all your
responses in this thread and they are all invalid.

>
>
In other words, you are admtting to being happy to be in error.

>
He has form for placing a finger in each ear and yelling "I'm right I'm right I'm right you're all wrong!"
>
There's no talking to 2-year-olds.
>

>
No one here is using any actual reasoning
in their rebuttals of my work. They rely
on dogma, misdirection, deflection and the
strawman error.
>
The last three methods are dishonest.
>

>
No, they are responding with rules and definitions from the system in question,
>

 A syntax error reporting by one compiler

ALL C compilers are required to diagnose ALL syntax errors and ALL constraint violations.

and considered
irrelevant by another compiler

In my experience, Microsoft's C compiler - although not perfect - is pretty good at following conformance rules. I'd be surprised to learn from a competent source that it misses a syntax error.

provides zero evidence
that DDD correctly emulated by some HHH halts.

Oh, we're a /long/ way off that. We've got all the dodgy derefs to fix first.
<snip>

Because you don't give a rat's ass for the actual
truth

We've known the truth for 90 years, and there's no 'actual truth' about a buggy program that gives the wrong answer.

you ignore the actual rebuttal requirements.

You mean like your ignoring rebuttals of your dodgy code?
--
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