XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: acm@muc.de
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott wrote:
> 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.
The theorem you so despise is a theorem. It has been proven, and I have
verified that proof. I am a graduate mathematician. This is sufficient
basis to dismiss your unfounded falsehoods.
[ Irrelevant stuff deleted. ]
>>>>> 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.
Wrong. As I said, I have a degree in maths; you don't. For the
supporting reasoning, I have the proof of the theorem you falsely deny.
> No one even tries to point out any actual mistake even when repeatedly
> dared to do this.
Several years of experience in this newsgroups shows that you invariably
ignore your many mistakes that people point out.
>> 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 above isn't worth addressing. It just shows your lack of
understanding of maths and science and their history.
>> 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.
You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed
out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you
just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).
Anyhow, you are just a crank. It is entirely the wrong thing to do to
engage a crank on his own terms, and I don't intend to start.
>>> 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.
A grand project indeed. Whether or not it is possible is doubtful. I
believe it is neither possible nor desirable.
>> 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.
. What would it take to make you see your own true intellectual
prowess, and that it is considerably less than that of the intellectual
giants of recent centuries?
> 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.
This is unattainable for many reasons. But I would encourage you to
persue this goal rather than continually post naive falsehoods on this
newsgroup. Even so, this type of truth wouldn't persuade people in
general, just as mathematical proof doesn't persuade you.
> --
> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
