Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: "big fat ignorant liar"
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:44:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <102mm8v$uef9$8@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$3@dont-email.me> <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:44:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c51c271cf6eb0f34185f6df029618a8";
	logging-data="997865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TogMCA4sv/LHHkTfKZk58"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GQQgHzAq8zJO4QpsSLqsBR3XG0I=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250615-2, 6/15/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
is not any actual rebuttal at all.

>>> 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.
> 

So how many decades how you carefully studied the
philosophical foundation of analytical truth?

>>> 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. 

After studying these things for 22 years I found
that every conventional proof of the halting problem
never provides an actual input that would do the
opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
decider (PHD) returns.

It is always the case that the computation the PHD
is embedded within or the function that calls the
PHD that does the opposite. It is never the input.

> 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.
> 

A termination analyzer is required to report on the
sequence of state transitions that its input specifies.

> 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.
> 

Yet it is not possible that this program is an input to
the PHD. Unless it is an actual input then the whole
conventional HP proof fails.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer