On 7/27/2021 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:14:20 -0500
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 2:02 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> .. due to the infinite recursion missed by Strachey blowing the
>>>> stack of any turing machine simulator with finite memory (stack)
>>>> size. One
>>> Turing machines don't have stacks. Stack machines have (of course)
>>> stacks of limitless length.
>> Flibble's reasoning is correct, yet based on my 2016 reasoning.
> It is based on my own reasoning not yours, dear.
It is documented that I came up with the idea of infinitely nested
recursion/simulation in 2016. I have posted this idea very extensively
in this forum long before you even understood the nature of the halting
It looks like the original specification provided
in the Linz text may be infinitely recursive in
that each TM requires its own input.
It was shortly before you posted this message that you showed that you
understood the difference between refuting the halting problem proofs
and solving the halting problem.
On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> examine) which rely on that mistake. >
Prior to this there was no indication that you understood the mechanism
of the conventional proofs at all. After this you proved that you
understood this mechanism far better that most everyone else.