Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years

On 6/1/2024 10:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:09 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

*two dozen people were simply wrong*

>
Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
more interesting.
>

>
This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself.
Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
another reply.
>
That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS
WRONG.
>
Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that H is correct to reject DD as non-halting no matter what the
behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is.
>

>
Similarly:
>
Because HH correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that it is correct to reject HH as non-halting no matter what the
behavior of the directly executed HH(DD,DD) is.

 I am going to simply ignore your disingenuous replies.
HH(DD,DD) halts as an empirical fact.