Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,197 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Proof that the halting problem is in    |
|    27 Dec 25 11:17:57    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/27/2025 11:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/27/25 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >   
   >> Unfulfilled logical impossibilities are defining   
   >> a requirement outside the scope of computation.   
   >>   
   >> Undecidability has always been a misnomer for   
   >> unfulfilled logical impossibilities.   
   >>   
   >> It has never been any actual limit to computation.   
   >> It has always been a requirement outside the scope   
   >> of computation.   
   >>   
   > You are just misusing gobbledygook jargon that doesn't means anything   
   > because you just don't understand what you are saying.   
   >   
      
   In other words the term: {logically impossible}   
   is over-your-head. I don't believe that.   
      
   You know that the set of square circles in the   
   same two dimensional plane is empty.   
      
   You are merely pretending to not understand   
   words that conclusively prove that you are wrong.   
      
   > You have effectively admitted this because you fail to every try to make   
   > a detailed comment about an error pointed out in your statements,   
   > because you are at least subconciously aware that going one level below   
   > your statements to try to explain will make your errors so obvious that   
   > even in your own stupidity you might understand, so your brainwashing   
   > won't let you go there.   
   >   
   > Sorry, you have KIILED your reputation, and buried it under your pile of   
   > POOP and sent it to that burning lake of fire where you will eventually   
   > accompany it for eternity trying to work out how it could possibly be   
   > correct, and every time you make one step forward, the truth will be   
   > shown and you go two steps backwards.   
      
   I have known that credibility is a fake measure   
   of correctness since I was a 14 year old boy.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca