Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 4/17/2025 6:49 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:In other words, you admit you don't know what you are talking about, because from that ANYTHING could be "correct".olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:When a categorically exhaustive search is made it isOn 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:>Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:>The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.>Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is wrong?>You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics. The halting problem has
been unequivocally proven. It is a simple theorem, only slightly more
complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.>We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that. We're
talking rigorous mathematics. We're talking about absolute truth,
something that Peter Olcott does not understand. You don't need to join
him.>/Flibble
>Moronically stupid "rigorous mathematics" that is far>
too stupid to know that unless the finite string input
input is transformed by finite string transformation
operations into outputs that you are doing the computer
science stupidly incorrectly.
That isn't even a well formed sentence.
>All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to>
finite string transformations on inputs deriving outputs.
That's a big assertion, one you have not proved. It is one you can't
prove, even were it true, since you don't understand the concept of
proof.
>
self-evident that all computation, logic, and human
reasoning has as its barest possible essence transforming input
finite strings into outputs via finite string transformations.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius>
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.