On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>
>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>
>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>
>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>
> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>
> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
> from other cranks.
>

I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

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

Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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