Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 20. May 2025, 08:10:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <100h9ti$24iva$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 20/05/2025 07:51, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-19 16:52:29 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
<snip>
Every single one of your points is either wrong or not a counter-
argument: you've got nothing.
Some of them are obviously counter arguments. Saying that they are
wrong without finding any error does not convince wnyone whose
opinion matters.
Perhaps he's stipulated that you're wrong, in which case he's got you over a barrel. :-)
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input
Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input