Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| 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.
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
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:00 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-22 19:05 +0100
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:23 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-22 19:26 +0100
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:30 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 14:30 -0400
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 17:18 -0400
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 18:24 -0400
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-22 17:29 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-22 18:39 -0400
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 01:59 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-01 02:11 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-01 12:31 +0200
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2022-06-14 21:33 -0600
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-15 06:40 -0400
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-15 11:19 +0300
Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-15 04:58 -0500
csiph-web