Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:

On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:

On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
problem proof is wrong.

>
But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the proof proves is correct?

>
It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be able to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>
<snip>
>

>
See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]

 And it seems you still can't.
 I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof.

Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.
All tautologies always prove themselves.
Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.
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
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
It is a tautology that any input D to termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer