home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 57,237 of 59,235   
   Richard Damon to olcott   
   =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_The_BOAK_formal_system_e   
   24 Dec 23 12:23:42   
   
   XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net   
      
   On 12/24/23 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:   
   >> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> This also equally applies to computability.   
   >>> Some of the basic concepts of computability   
   >>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.   
   >>>   
   >>> For example three computer scientists essentially   
   >>> agree that the halting problem is essentially   
   >>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.   
   >>   
   >> Anyone can find three idiots.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Zero idiots can become PhD computer science professors.   
   >   
      
   No, there are PLENTY of idiots that become professors, even with PhDs.   
      
   I suspect you haven't been close enough to a PhD program to understand   
   what it actually means. It CAN be a major achievement, but without   
   seeing the work done for it, it can also be essentially meaningless.   
      
   I guess you aren't smart enough to know that.   
      
   After all, the old saying is those that can't do, teach, pointing out   
   that SOME people become teachers because they can't actually do the work   
   well enough to actually get results.   
      
   Of course, since you refuse to actually reveal who most of these are, or   
   what they ACTUALLY agreed to, you have ZERO actual athorites that you   
   are hanging your fallacy of proof by athority on, showing how little you   
   actually understand how things work.   
      
   And, we actually don't need any idiot PhD Computer Science Professors,   
   we just need ONE Idiot trying to claim what they say supports his   
   theories, when he has already shown form one example that he is actually   
   incapable of understanding what the words actually mean.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca