XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/8/2022 9:28 PM, Python wrote:

Peter Olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2022 6:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:38:07 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:

What's the next move? We have established [Turing, 1936] as elaborated >>>> by [Strachey, 1965] is a nonsense so we now need a general algorithm
to establish if a program and its inputs halt.

First up: functional requirements.

/Flibble

Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D

/Flibble

When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite
recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can
correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input.

The first three pages of this paper examine this concretely as
actually executed in the x86utm operating system:

Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr
Flibble.

This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation : someone  (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...) admitted after only a few weeks of posting nonsense that he was actually wrong.

After all these years of crankery, could you exhibit the the same
integrity?

My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not
using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way.

Now I am using subtle nuances the conventional terms of the art that are
too subtle for anyone besides one computer science professor that I have
spoken with.

I have never been wrong in the essence of what I have been saying.

The reason that I keep going on Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936), Turing(1936)
is because if these things are correct then truth itself is broken.


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)