Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension

From: Simon G Best (s.g.best_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:53:17 +0000 (UTC)

Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4133078A.3090606@btopenworld.com...
>
>>Mitch Harris wrote:
>>
>>>Simon G Best <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh, come on, Peter! If you actually bothered to properly read the many,
>>>>many, many replies you've had to your posts, you'd already know and
>>>>understand that it's /not/ that we don't 'get it', it's that we can see
>>>>that you're /ignoring/ the corrections that have so often been posted to
>>>>your 'misunderstandings'.
>>>
>>>But what if we're wrong?
>>
>>What, about the Halting Problem? Or about Olcott being willfully ignorant?
>
> I have set a simple and precise standard for refuting my position
> that does meet the burden of proof of prving a negative. If you
> want to join in with this feel free. The standard is simply to find
> an input that my method can not correctly process. [...]

Your "standard" of refutation has been met many, many times. Ignoring
and deciding not to read such refutations does not mean that your
"standard" hasn't been met. It does, however, demonstrate that you are
being willfully ignorant.

Simon