XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: rjh@cpax.org.uk   
      
   On 26/09/2025 19:10, olcott wrote:   
   > On 9/26/2025 1:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >> On 26/09/2025 18:17, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 9/26/2025 12:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>>> On 26/09/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Two other PhD computer scientists agree with me.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's an attempt at an appeal to authority, but it isn't a   
   >>>> convincing argument. There must be many /thousands/ of Comp   
   >>>> Sci PhDs who've studied the Halting Problem (for the 10   
   >>>> minutes it takes to drink a cup of coffee while they run the   
   >>>> proof through their minds) and who have no problem with it   
   >>>> whatsoever.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> And of course you can dismiss whatever they say   
   >>> without looking at a single word because majority   
   >>> consensus have never been shown to be less than   
   >>> totally infallible.   
   >>   
   >> That isn't what I said. I said that for every PhD you can   
   >> appeal to who doesn't understand the proof, there will be   
   >> thousands who do understand the proof.   
   >>   
   >   
   > By showing that two PhD computer scientists agree   
   > with my position makes it unreasonably implausible   
   > that I am a mere crackpot.   
      
   No, what makes it reasonably plausible that you're a crackpot is   
   that you've spent twenty years trying to answer a question you   
   believe to be incorrect, meaningless, and nonsensical, and you   
   make asinine arguments here with every indication of actually   
   believing them. You make grand claims for yourself but don't back   
   them up with intelligent discussion of the points made agaibst   
   you, and you sneer at what you perceive as the dishonesty and   
   incompetence of your correspondents. You've got crank written   
   through you like a stick of Brighton Rock.   
      
   >>> The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice   
   >>> between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do   
   >>> so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”   
   >>   
   >> We don't even have to do that, because there is no need to   
   >> change our minds and the proof is already written.   
   >>   
   >   
   > In other words because you are sure that I must   
   > be wrong there is no need to pay close attention   
   > to what I say.   
      
   Close attention must be earned. You might get it out of sheer   
   curiosity to start with, but when you write an endless stream of   
   drivel you quickly lose it, and it's hard to regain.   
      
   > *The halting problem proof question is this*   
      
   No, it isn't.   
      
   The halting problem proof question is this: can a universal   
   halting decider exist?   
      
   The halting problem proof answer is this: no.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)