Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?

From	Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng, sci.logic
Subject	Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?
Message-ID	<20220522192659.00001bc9@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink)
References	<4_adnW5_44_d5xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220522190556.000035ba@reddwarf.jmc> <m_WdneJRE78I4hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization	Jupiter Mining Corp
Date	2022-05-22 19:26 +0100

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:23:16 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/22/2022 1:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:00:31 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> >> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> >> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> >> behavior pattern.
> > 
> > The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite
> > recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree.
> > 
> > /Flibble
> > 
> 
> So you simply guess that you must be correct and totally ignore my
> proof that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP
> proof is refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM
> equivalents) specifies infinitely nested simulation to its halt
> decider.

But they don't though: it is YOU who is introducing the idea of an
erroneous infinitely nested simulation. 

/Flibble

Thread

csiph-web