XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/5/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>> Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >   
   > [ .... ]   
   >   
   >>>> All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof   
   >>>> technique.   
   >   
   > You have not.  You've not even come close.   
   >   
      
   That you do not even know the details of my work gives   
   you no basis to refute it.   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   No more gaslighting me that DDD simulated by HHH   
   according to the semantics of the C programming   
   language can possibly reach its own simulated "return"   
   statement final halt state.   
      
   Four different Chatbots were able to immediately figure   
   this out on their own.   
      
   >>>> Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next best   
   >>>> proof after that.   
   >>> Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting   
   >>> theorem?   
   >   
   >   
   >> To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.   
   >   
   > You're a clueless fool.  You don't understand in the abstract what a   
   > proof is, and you don't understand this particular proof.   
   >   
   >> The reason that I am doing this is that people have a fundamentally   
   >> incorrect understanding about how truth itself actually works.   
   >   
   > You're a clueless fool.  You yourself have no correct understanding about   
   > truth.   
      
   All you have is rhetoric and ad hominem that is entirely   
   bereft of any supporting reasoning. No one even tries to   
   point out any actual mistake even when repeatedly dared   
   to do this.   
      
   > In particular, when a mathematical result is proven by a   
   > mathematical proof, it is true.   
      
      
   Sure because all mathematicians that created these proofs   
   are inherently infallible. If God himself pointed out any   
   error this would be blasphemy.   
      
   The proof of this is that Naive set theory is still infallible   
   and ZFC is just some head game that has no actual value at all.   
      
      
   > The proof you delude yourself you have   
   > "conquered" is a valid proof.  It was formulated by mathematicians much   
   > brighter than either of us, and is an exceptionally simple and clear   
   > proof.  Any reasonably bright undergraduate can grasp it in a few   
   > minutes.   
   >   
      
   You can't even correctly point out one single detail of any   
   actual mistake that I made that would invalidate my proof.   
      
   >> Because of these misconceptions there has been no objective way to   
   >> divide truth from well crafted lies.   
   >   
   > A great deal of what you post on this newsgroup is lies, though I   
   > wouldn't call them well crafted.  You simply have no well developed   
   > notion of what truth is.   
   >   
   > There has never been an objective way to differentiate truth from   
   > falsehood in politics and general discourse.   
      
   Yet.   
   *What I am proposing is a giant expansion of the syllogism*   
   Every meaning of every natural language word is mathematically   
   formalized using an extension to Montague Grammar. These are   
   all in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. This creates   
   a finite list of all of the basis facts of the world.   
      
   > There is, though, in the   
   > field of mathematics and, to a lesser degree, science.  You reject that   
   > objective way, however, confusing truth with what you would like to be   
   > true.   
   >   
   >> This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and   
   >> the destruction of the planet through climate change.   
   >   
   > You are (deliberately?) confusing different types of truth.  Mathematics   
   > and science are no defence against politicians like failed artists and   
   > failed business men.  Unfortunately.   
   >   
      
   No this too is not my error. It is actually the error   
   of Willard Van Orman Quine https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/   
   that used double talk and weasel words to convince most   
   people that analytic truth does not exist. He couldn't   
   even figure out how we know that bachelors are unmarried.   
      
   The type of truth that I refer to here is expressions of   
   language that are proven completely true entirely on the   
   basis of other expressions of language.   
      
   >> --   
   >> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)