On 14/02/24 18:01, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 10:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-14 14:48:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-14 02:54:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2024 7:55 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced.
>>>>>>>>>> He does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in
>>>>>>>>> either case
>>>>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any
>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>>>>>> position that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *the only reason the halting problem cannot be*
>>>>>>> *solved is that there is something wrong with it*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree it cannot be solved. Case closed. You can stop
>>>>>> posting now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>>>>>
>>>>> *Incorrect questions place to limit on anyone or anything*
>>>>> *Incorrect questions place to limit on anyone or anything*
>>>>> *Incorrect questions place to limit on anyone or anything*
>>>>
>>>> If you think so then show a Turing machine that can correctly answer
>>>> at least some incorrect question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Clearly you have no understanding of what I am saying.
>>
>> I do understand what you are saying. If that is not what you want to
>> say you need to say something else.
>>
>
> That you are disagreeing with a self-evident truth conclusively
> proves that you either lack understanding or are dishonest.
>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
>
True or false: There is a Turing machine that solves the halting problem
for all Turing machines.

On 2/14/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 10:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-14 14:46:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-13 15:06:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-13 00:11:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in
>>>>>>> either case
>>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is now eay indirect, that is a direct statement of an important
>>>>>> part of the proof of undecidability of halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Macias says this is what's wrong with the halting problem
>>>>> specification:
>>>>>     But there is a class of computer functions whose behavior is
>>>>>     dependent on the context in which they are called or used:
>>>>>     these may be called Context-Dependent Functions (CDFs).
>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus three PhD computer science professors agree (with me) that
>>>>> there is something wrong with the halting problem specification.
>>>>
>>>> One can say that certain computer functions are context dependent
>>>> but no Turing machine is. Therefore that statement does not apply
>>>> to the halting problem of Turring machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrongo. These are Turing machine templates where embedded_H
>>
>> A template is not a Turing machine.
>>
>
> That seems like a dishonest reply when it is dead obvious
> that a TM template precisely defines an infinite set of
> Turing Machines. Why lie?
>
>

And since Halting is a property of Turing Machine, not templates, you
are showing your ignorance.

Is a Rainbow's color Red?

On 2/14/24 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 5:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-13 15:06:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-13 00:11:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either
>>>>> case
>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>
>>>> That is now eay indirect, that is a direct statement of an important
>>>> part of the proof of undecidability of halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Macias says this is what's wrong with the halting problem specification:
>>>     But there is a class of computer functions whose behavior is
>>>     dependent on the context in which they are called or used:
>>>     these may be called Context-Dependent Functions (CDFs).
>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>
>>> Thus three PhD computer science professors agree (with me) that
>>> there is something wrong with the halting problem specification.
>>
>> One can say that certain computer functions are context dependent
>> but no Turing machine is. Therefore that statement does not apply
>> to the halting problem of Turring machines.
>>
>
> Wrongo. These are Turing machine templates where embedded_H
> is invoked in a different context than H such that every
> value that embedded_H returns is incorrect and H can correctly
> determine the halt status of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

But they NEED to be Turing Machine descriptions. Not Turing machine
"template" descriptions.

"Templates" don't have "Halting Behavior", as they can't be run, only
FIRST instantiated, then run. Only the specific instance has a Halting
Behavior, the behavior described by the template varies based on which
instantiation you end up looking at.

Sort of lke holding up a rainbow and asking is this color Red.

>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

And Ĥ as well as H are SPECIFIC Turing Machines.

>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ asks: Do you halt on your own Turing Machine Description?
> Both yes and no are the wrong answer just like the Liar Paradox question.
> Is this sentence true or false: “this sentence is not true.” ???

Nope. Ĥ ask H will I halt.

>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is context dependent
> H Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not context dependent
>

CAN'T BE.

Please show the first step of the actual EXECUTION of it that deviates
based on its context.

You are just proving your total ignorance, and that you are believing
your own lies.

Context Dependent Computations do not exist as actual computations.

PERIOD.

Proven FACT.

On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He does
>>>> not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>
>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>
>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either case
>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>
>
> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
> position that:

Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
think about it, although he does not have time immediately.

When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.

On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>
>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>>
>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either case
>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>
>>
>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>> position that:
>
> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
> the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>
> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>
>

We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either
>>>>> case
>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>> position that:
>>
>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
>> the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
>> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
>> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>>
>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>
>>
>
> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>

So the vote is still thousands against what 4?

You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.

On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this
>>>>>>>>>>> and not see
>>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either
>>>>>> case
>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>>> position that:
>>>
>>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I
>>> think the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
>>> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
>>> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>>>
>>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>
>
> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>
> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.

With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 16/02/24 23:56, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>>
>>
>> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>>
>> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.
>
> With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
> With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.
>

It is possible that two cranks can believe the same thing and both be
cranks. It is also possible that a crank can get a degree. Authority
does not imply correctness.

On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not see
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in
>>>>>>> either case
>>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>>>> position that:
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I
>>>> think the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor
>>>> Olcott, Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my
>>>> thoughts and think about it, although he does not have time
>>>> immediately.
>>>>
>>>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>>>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>>
>>
>> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>>
>> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.
>
> With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
> With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.
>

Since your statement that you are claim is just wrong, you are just
proving yourself a crank to be continuing to claim it.'

You can't "prove" a false statement, on show that your logic system is
broken.

So, you are just proving that you ARE a crank, and that you don't know
how to use propber logic.

You are just proving this to the whole world.