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

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,
THAT is honest.
Note, "Dogma" can be truth, when it is pronouncement of the definitions of the system.
All you are doing is trying to respond with baseless assertation based on equivocations, contradictions, and outright lies.
THAT is just dishonest, and prove that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
If you want to try to create a new system, as you sometimes seem to imply when you get a bit more honest, you need to be actually honest about it, and not pretend that you system is not "the system". You can try to work out a real detailed and complete definition of POOPS (Peter Olcotts Other Programming System) and then show what it can do, and see if you can find any takers willing to see if it is useful.
Until then, you are just proving yourself to be just a blantant liar that thinks rules don't apply to him.