On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors in the
>> philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People acting
>> like sheep say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>> conventional wisdom.
>>
>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>> believe me.
>>
>
> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by definition,
> conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
> definitions.
>

When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves then
this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.

> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they are
> pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.

No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

> Logically,
> you are an OUTLAW. You can not accept them, because your mind is stuck
> in your fantasy where you THINK you know something that no one else
> does, but that idea is just a lie.
>
> You claims that you have somehow 'proved' something are just flat out
> LIES as the definition of Truth means it obeys the reality of the
> system. Perhaps the simplest one to point out is your insistance that
> the behavior of the simulation of <H^> <H^> does not correspond to the
> behavior of the machine H^ applied to <H^>, when by all definitions of
> simulation, that is the plain meaning.

The fact that embedded_H is applied to a copy of itself reveals
something new that conventional wisdom has never sufficiently accounted
for. No one has ever examined the notion of infinitely nested simulation
applied to the halting problem counter-examples prior to my analysis.

THAT A SIMULATION MUST BE ABORTED TO PREVENT THE INFINITE EXECUTION OF
THIS SIMULATION IS A CORRECT MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A
NON-HALTING SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.

ALL THAT YOU CAN SAY AS A REBUTTAL TO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH: I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ depends on embedded_H aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
embedded_H cannot depend on anything else aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩.

(a) You know that these two facts are true.

(b) You know that these two facts derive a different sequence of
configurations.

∴ any claim that these two sequences of configurations must be identical
is disingenuous at best.

> If a simulation does not match
> the thing it is supposed to be simulating, the simulation is inaccurate.
> You even admit (or have in the past) that H^ applied to <H^> Halts,
> which means the ONLY correct answer for what a simulation of <H^> <H^>
> should show is that it halts. BY DEFINITION.
>
> In many ways I pity you, as it seems you have some ideas that might be
> worth discussing (in a different venue) but you have basically closed
> that door because you are insainly committed you mind to a path that you
> can not support. This seems to indicate that you really don't understand
> what Truth actually is, and are going to suffer the consequences of that.
>
> You have FAILED. You are going to pay for your rebellion to the truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>
>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>>
>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors
>>> in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom.
>>> People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they are
>>> attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>
>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>> believe me.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
>> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by definition,
>> conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes its rules
>> and definitions.
>>
>
> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves then
> this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.

Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!

>
>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>
> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
> can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
> acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>   Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Only if H never aborts.

>
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>   Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>   Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>   Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

Only if H never aborts.

SO either H never aborts, and makes an H^ that loops, but H doesn't
answer, and thus still fails, or

H does abort, and thus the infinite loop you just showed never happened.

The problem YOU keep on ignoring is that H needs to be a finite fixed
algorithm. WHen it is that, there is no problem, and there is always
definite answer to Halting ( H^ applied to <H^>) and H can never give it.

PERIOD.

>
>> Logically, you are an OUTLAW. You can not accept them, because your
>> mind is stuck in your fantasy where you THINK you know something that
>> no one else does, but that idea is just a lie.
>>
>> You claims that you have somehow 'proved' something are just flat out
>> LIES as the definition of Truth means it obeys the reality of the
>> system. Perhaps the simplest one to point out is your insistance that
>> the behavior of the simulation of <H^> <H^> does not correspond to the
>> behavior of the machine H^ applied to <H^>, when by all definitions of
>> simulation, that is the plain meaning.
>
> The fact that embedded_H is applied to a copy of itself reveals
> something new that conventional wisdom has never sufficiently accounted
> for. No one has ever examined the notion of infinitely nested simulation
> applied to the halting problem counter-examples prior to my analysis.
>

No, it doesn/t

> THAT A SIMULATION MUST BE ABORTED TO PREVENT THE INFINITE EXECUTION OF
> THIS SIMULATION IS A CORRECT MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A
> NON-HALTING SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.

Which means you jusrt had two DIFFERENT things that you called 'H' (or
embedded_H).

>
> ALL THAT YOU CAN SAY AS A REBUTTAL TO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH: I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

And ALL You have ever said in rebuttal is that you refuse to believe
anyone, and will just ignore the actual RULES of the logic you are
claiming to work on.

This just shows that you are just lying about actually doing what you
claim and proves you have no truth in you.

>
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ depends on embedded_H aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
> embedded_H cannot depend on anything else aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩
> ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Right, embedded_H can get no help in coming up with the right answer.

The CORRECT behavior of H^ is visable to use with meta-analysis, we KNOW
that H^ has been built contrary to H, so H will be wrong, but H can't
see that.

But the correct answer to what the correct simultation of <H^> <H^> does
is exactly dependent on what H^ applied to <H^> does. This mean that the
simulation of embedded_H NEEDS to be dependent on <H^> <H^>? which is
dependent on H^ applied to <H^> which is dependent on what H applied to
<H^> <H^> does, so to try to reason what you need to make H do, you need
to take its own behavior into account.

Now, once you make up you mind and decide on what you are going to code
into H, then we no longer have the question what should H do if it sees
and infinite loop, as H has already been programmed one way or the other,

Either H lets the loop goes, and actaully makes the infinite loop, but
fails by never answering, or

H does abort its loop, but that means the ACTUAL CORRECT simulation of
the H^ built on THIS H, will see its H do the same and Halt, so H is
incorrect.

You seem to forget this and try to build yourself a Schrodinger Turing
machine, which doesn't actually exist.

>
> (a) You know that these two facts are true.
>
> (b) You know that these two facts derive a different sequence of
> configurations.
>

No, the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> MUST have exactly the same
sequence of states as that actual exectuiton of H^ applied to <H^>, that
is the definition of a CORRECT simulatiopn.

On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom
>
> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
> (uninteresting) ways...
>

If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly summed
up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Wittgenstein
Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of
language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their philosophical
foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians and
mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest philosophical
level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge of the philosophy
of logic.

If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
specific error that Wittgenstein made.

Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.

Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:

"Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same basis
as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".

I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
it is self-contradictory.

Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.

Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>>> believe me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
>>> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes
>>> its rules and definitions.
>>>
>>
>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>
> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>
>>
>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>
>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
>> can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
>> acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>
> Only if H never aborts.
You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.

Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times you
must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>>>> believe me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
>>>> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>
>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>
>>>
>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>>>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>
>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Only if H never aborts.
> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>
> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times you
> must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>

And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
state because you give up when your machine aborts it.

CORRECT SIMULATION == BEHAVIOR OF THAT EXACT MACHINE WITHOUT ABORTING.

I.E Correct behavior of the input <H^> <H^> IS the behavior of H^
applied to <H^> BY DEFINITION.

The copy of H with it still aborts, and lets H^ reach its end state.

YOu just lie about it because you dont know what truth is.

FAIL.

On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>
>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>>
>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>
>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>
>
> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly summed
> up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> Wittgenstein
> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of
> language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>
> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their philosophical
> foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians and
> mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest philosophical
> level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge of the philosophy
> of logic.
>
> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
> specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>
> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
> Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>
> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>
> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same basis
> as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>
> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
> it is self-contradictory.
>
> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
> Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>
> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>
>

Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities of
the problem. Being able to base something on something isn;t the same as
just using it.

If you read the article carefully, you will note that his view changed
quite a bit over time, and it sounds like in the end he moved away from
'mathematics' and it sounds to me like dealing with things like
Computations (perhaps he realized that field didn't mesh with some of
his ideas).

Perhaps if you remember that we need to go by the ACTUAL definitions.
ANd the problem you run into is that there ARE precise definitions for a
lot of the things you try to talk about, but because you insist on
staying dumb on them (by refusing to actually study the basics), you get
them all wrong.

In particualar, there are very precise definitions for things like
Turing MAchines, Computation, the Halting Problem, correct simulation,
that you just keep messing up on. This just makes you out to be a liar,
since you refuese to learn the truth.

On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>>>>> believe me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>>
>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>>>>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>
>>> Only if H never aborts.
>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>
>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>
>
> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.

As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn

whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
You either have brain damage or are a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>
>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>
>>
>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> Wittgenstein
>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy
>> of language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians
>> and mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest
>> philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge
>> of the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
>> specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>
>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
>> Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>
>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>
>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>
>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
>> it is self-contradictory.
>>
>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
>> Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>
>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities of
> the problem. B
Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly clueless
about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them by rote.

Wittgenstein is quoted on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>
>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>
>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>
>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>
>>
>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>
> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>
> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>

Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn 'wheter or not
embedded_H aborts its simulation'. By definition, it can only get there
if it DOES abort, and thus ALL copies of H applied to <H^> <H^> abort
their simulation.

And if embedded_H <H^> <H^> -> H^.Qn, then we have as a fact that the H^
applied to <H^> that this embedded_H is embedded into also goes to H^.Qn
and **HALTS**

And thus the CORRECT answer for HALTS(H^ applied to <H^>) is YES, and
thus H applied to <H^> <H^> needs to compute that mapping to be correct
and go to H.Qy, which it doesn't, so it is WRONG.

BY DEFINITION.

If you now want to claim that H^ applied to <H^> wasn't the input, yes,
technically the input is <H^> <H^> but the BEHAVIOR of that input is
defined by H^ applied to <H^> if you are working on the Halting Problem.

Thus, either you are lying about working on the Halting Problem, or you
are lying about what the requirements are, or you are lying about
H/embedded_H being a correct simulator.

In some way you must be lying because you are just WRONG.

FAIL.

On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>>>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>
>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>>>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>
>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>
>
> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>
>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein
>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy
>>> of language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians
>>> and mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest
>>> philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge
>>> of the philosophy of logic.
>>>
>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>
>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
>>> Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>
>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>
>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>
>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>
>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities of
>> the problem. B
> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly clueless
> about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them by rote.
>
> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>

Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.

His Quote that you highlight:

'True in Russell's system' means, as wassaid: proved in Russell's
system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has been
proved in Russell's system

is not a correct statement.

True means it is factually true.

False means it is factually false.

Our 'Knowledge' by having proved it doesn't matter.

The problem is the definition of 'True' as 'Provable' doesn't work in
Mathematics.

I gave you one exampe, the statement 'There exists a finite number such
that the series of number obtained by making the next number after an
even number x be x/2 and the next number after an odd number x will be
3*x +1, will never reach the value 1 and the repeating pattern 1, 4, 2,
1, ...'

This statement clearly must be either True, or it is False, either such
a number exists or it doesn't.

The fact that we haven't been able to prove the statement either way
doesn't remove that fact. It is still either True or it is False.

(or we can look at the pair of statements, There exists a finite number
..... and There does not exist a finite number ....)

So we don't have knowledge of the answer, but we know it exists.

For some problems like this, (Like the Halting Problem) one side, if it
is true MUST be provable (if M w halts, then just simulating it for some
finite number of steps show that it halts), so if the answer actually is
unprovable, it MUST be non-halting, which means that we must not be able
to actually prove that it is un-provable, and that continues going out
forever.

This shows that a system that requires True to be Provable must be less
powerful than Mathematics (which actually is an established fact, we can
create logic system with the defintion that something is only true if it
can be proven, and they are less expressive than the mathematics of the
natural numbers).

On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's
>>>>>>>>>>>> like assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA
>>>>>>>>>>>> since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be
>>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>>>>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>
>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>
>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>
>>
>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>

Which means that either embedded_H never gets to H.Qn (which says you
claim that embedded_H -> H.Qn is a LIE), or embedded_H aborts its
simulation, and thus the fact that ITS simulation (which in now
incomplete) isn't 'proof' of non-halting, and if we do an ACTUAL correct
simulation we find that the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> does reach H^.Qn

Which is embedded_H? it can't be both, that is double minded, which is
not allowed.

On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths
>>>>>>>>> by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be
>>>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the
>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>
>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>
>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>
> Which means that

On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>
>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>
>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>
>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>
>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>> of the problem. B
>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>> by rote.
>>
>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>
> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>
> His Quote that you highlight:
>
> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has been
> proved in Russell's system
>
> is not a correct statement.
So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???

Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a comparable
notion of what "true in a formal system" means.

Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong to
𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that these
elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an elementary
theorem is an elementary statement which is true...

Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth preserving
operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.

When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
always necessarily end up with truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected
>>>>>>>>>>> the errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this
>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have
>>>>>>>>>>> is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they
>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths
>>>>>>>>>> by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field,
>>>>>>>>>> that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must
>>>>>>>>> be resolved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the
>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you
>>>>>>>>> yourself already acknowledged that it is an infinitely
>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>
>>
>> Which means that
>
> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
> infinitely recursive.
>

On 2/22/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>
>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>>> of the problem. B
>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>>> by rote.
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>
>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>
>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has been
>> proved in Russell's system
>>
>> is not a correct statement.
> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???

Remember, the statement says (in effect) P is not provable, thus the 'in
Russell's system' means that provable is defined per Russell's system.

>
> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a comparable
> notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>
> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong to
> 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that these
> elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an elementary
> theorem is an elementary statement which is true...

And that definition is PRESUMING the definition of True means provable.

That is NOT the actual definition of True, at least as far as
Mathematics are concerned.

On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected
>>>>>>>>>>>> the errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have
>>>>>>>>>>>> is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as
>>>>>>>>>>> truths by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical
>>>>>>>>>>> field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must
>>>>>>>>>> be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE
>>>>>>>>>>> RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you
>>>>>>>>>> yourself already acknowledged that it is an infinitely
>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it
>>>>>>>> is aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means that
>>
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
>> infinitely recursive.
>>
>
> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and it
> FAILED.
_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths,
>>>>>>>>>>>> as truths by definition, conform to reality, and in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must
>>>>>>>>>>> be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE
>>>>>>>>>>>> RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though
>>>>>>>>>>> you yourself already acknowledged that it is an infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it
>>>>>>>>> is aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which means that
>>>
>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
>>> infinitely recursive.
>>>
>>
>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and it
>> FAILED.
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>
>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>>> of the problem. B
>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>>> by rote.
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>
>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>
>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has been
>> proved in Russell's system
>>
>> is not a correct statement.
> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???

You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.

You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to Gödel's
Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True in
Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth at all.

As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein 'thinking
out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he later expanded
upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which he clearly came up
with before his morning coffee.

We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular paragraph
if he later revisited it, but there are two things of which we are
absolutely certain.