Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: "big fat ignorant liar"
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:19:10 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <YpG1Q.1572310$4AM6.1293015@fx17.ams4> <ab53329d43e0587e58fe949b7a8f1dce83bb580f@i2pn2.org> <1027uhs$r7bj$2@dont-email.me> <6f1855be769b3afc319d871c0d451f381803ba5e@i2pn2.org> <1029hvm$1ah2f$1@dont-email.me> <102bhn6$1t2a1$1@dont-email.me> <102c462$20jl4$10@dont-email.me> <102e2p4$2iugr$1@dont-email.me> <102er47$2ohps$3@dont-email.me> <102gv1s$3cscf$1@dont-email.me> <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:19:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1939c4df549281b075671edfe39ddeb2";
	logging-data="877100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HwIYwPB+fv3Po5pTZZJKU"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JhD9jnXm5qyzyiFKEvIGZQGAeZo=

On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There are no words.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me wrong?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What about this paper that I wrote?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What specifically do you believe is not proven?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The article makes no attempt to prove anything.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
>>>> 
>>>> On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
>>>> a proof?
>>> 
>>> Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
>> 
>> Irrepevant.
> 
> That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
> possibly be more relevant.

Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is.

> It means that when I conclusively
> prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
> correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
> from incorrect.

Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.

>> Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
>> proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
> 
> Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
> basis of all proofs.

No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.

>> As you respond to my question without answering it it is
>> obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
> 
> It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
> termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
> whatever value that H derives. The key element that
> all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.

Nonsense is not a fact. The expression "any termination analyzer H"
does not mean anything in this context, which does not have the
definitions that would give it a meaning.

The key element is that in the context of all convetional HP proofs
for every decider it is possible to construct a program that halts
if the decider rejects it and does not halt if the decider rejects
it, which proves that the decider is not a halting decider.

-- 
Mikko