Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:35:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org> <95b8d2686a17a5fee6b5811ca115c902fbc7b17a@i2pn2.org> <5b7927d3326970682c6165aa8d2b4bccee65df37@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 04:35:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179"; logging-data="2120472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fuO7V7U9R0WX1+zs+UuZ6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mJdD3SxMCU/A07gu1ldkG472190= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3596 On 7/2/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps. >>>>>> So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that >>>>>> this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important details. >>>>> >>>>> No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an >>>>> arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a >>>>> proven statement (which you don't understand) >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can't correct my error because you know that you have no >>>> understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as >>>> always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to >>>> correct to hide the fact that you are clueless. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself to >>> be a LIAR. >>> >> You just proved that you are clueless. > > Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar? > > You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to > understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it > says, just like you always do. > Dishonest dodge. I just looked up my rebuttal again. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer