Sujet : Re: "big fat ignorant liar"
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 13. Jun 2025, 16:33:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
>
There are no words.
>
/Flibble
>
Can you show me wrong?
>
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?
>
What about this paper that I wrote?
>
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>
>
Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".
>
What specifically do you believe is not proven?
>
The article makes no attempt to prove anything.
>
That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
>
On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
a proof?
>
Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
Irrepevant.
That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
possibly be more relevant. It means that when I conclusively
prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
from incorrect.
Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
basis of all proofs.
As you respond to my question without answering it it is
obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
whatever value that H derives. The key element that
all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.
int main()
{
DD(); // calls HHH(DD). The caller of HHH(DD) is not its actual input
} // it is a different instance of DD that has different behavior.
// If you don't understand that instances of classes from
// object oriented programming are not the same as these
// classes themselves then you won't get this.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: "big fat ignorant liar"
Re: "big fat ignorant liar"