Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 2025-05-24 17:15:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/24/2025 12:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 21:24, olcott wrote:

 

<snip>

 

Liar

 

An unequivocal response, but it lacks persuasive power.

 

When I provide the exact detailed steps of exactly how
people can show that I am wrong and they refuse to
show that I am wrong yet claim that I am wrong this
is the kind of reckless disregard for the truth that
loses defamation cases.

 

When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves you're wrong

 

Without going through all of the detailed steps
that I present that is a reckless disregard for
the truth that loses defamation cases.

 There you are utterly wrong.  The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus
is true.  Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore be wrong.
 You might also put up a long winded argument why 2 + 2 = 5, and I would
dismiss this likewise, without bothering to follow your exact detailed
steps.
 You've also tried, without success, to dismiss one of the proofs of the
Halting Therem as invalid.

 And would be successful if people actually paid
attention to what I said.

People are successfull in pointing out errors in what you say. If you don't
understand what they say and don't ask questions that is your problem. But
the success is that other readers can see that at least some of your claims
are unjustified and even provably wrong.
Whether unimportant people pay attention to your unimportant words is
unimportant.
--
Mikko