Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 13/05/2025 03:48, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He
knows very little C and the code is crap, but that/is/  a
straw man -- it's the simplest part of his argument to
fix.

>
Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>

 Do you really think that nit picky details

Are important? Yes.
Are important to you? No.

can refute the gist of what I am saying

No. If you won't listen to Alan Turing's refutation, you're sure as hell not going to listen to mine.

that needs none of these details?

There we must differ.
The nit picky detail at the heart of this debacle is that without a universal halt decider you don't have an argument, and you sure as hell don't have a universal halt decider.
--
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