1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.programming

  • Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalidrebuttals

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.programming on Tue Mar 4 09:56:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.programming

    On 3/4/2025 8:47 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 04/03/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
    The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
    exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
    own "ret" instruction.

    If that is the only rebuttal you are prepared to accept as valid, congratulations! You have solved the Halting Problem entirely to your
    own satisfaction.

    If you want to be recognised for your breakthrough, however, it is not enough that nobody should convince you that you're wrong; you have to convince others that you're right,

    If they can not show how DD correctly emulated by HHH
    reaches its own "ret" instruction this proves that they
    lack the technical competence to understand that the
    code proves that HHH(DD) is correct to reject its input
    as non-terminating.

    and that means explaining exactly why
    their criticisms are ill-founded. Saying "I'm right and I won't listen
    to anyone claiming otherwise" lacks explanatory power.

    F'ups set.

    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
    --- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Heathfield@rjh@cpax.org.uk to comp.programming on Tue Mar 4 16:38:16 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.programming

    On 04/03/2025 15:56, olcott wrote:
    On 3/4/2025 8:47 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 04/03/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
    The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
    exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
    own "ret" instruction.

    If that is the only rebuttal you are prepared to accept as
    valid, congratulations! You have solved the Halting Problem
    entirely to your own satisfaction.

    If you want to be recognised for your breakthrough, however, it
    is not enough that nobody should convince you that you're
    wrong; you have to convince others that you're right,

    If they can not show how DD correctly emulated by HHH
    reaches its own "ret" instruction this proves that they
    lack the technical competence to understand that the
    code proves that HHH(DD) is correct to reject its input
    as non-terminating.

    Unfortunately, declaring that you're right isn't sufficiently
    convincing to win you any recognition. Just saying "X proves Y"
    lacks rigour, and rigour is what you're going to need if you're
    to persuade anyone.
    --
    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

    --- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2