| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 40:25:35 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,392 |
On 9/28/25 12:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/28/2025 9:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 28/09/2025 16:07, olcott wrote:
On 9/28/2025 10:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 28/09/2025 15:24, olcott wrote:
On 9/27/2025 10:36 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 28/09/2025 04:28, olcott wrote:
The conventional halting problem proof is merely
a rigged question thus of no consequence.
Did you even bother to read my article?
What an ignoramus.
I am an actual genius
"I am an actual genius." P Olcott, comp.theory, 28 September 2025
Got it.
Well done, that man.
This is over your head?
Not at all. Your claim was that "In all of the HP proofs there is an
input D to decider H that halts if H says loops and loops if H says
halts."
By providing a HP proof where there was no such input, I showed that
your claim was erroneous.
You can't even understand when you've been proved wrong, so it's
over / your/ head, not mine.
"I am an actual genius." P Olcott, comp.theory, 28 September 2025 -
Jolly good show, what?
Should that be:
I am an actual genius/god?