Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker

joes <noreply@example.com> writes:

Am Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:14 -0400 schrieb Richard Damon:

Yep, perhaps some day soon we will be rid of your lies.

That’s low.
Your continuous cries of „liar” aren’t any better than Peter’s spam.

Long before I stopped replying to PO I stopped calling his remarks lies.
He is simply too deluded to be reliably accused of lying.  After all, he
published a website claiming to bring new scripture to the world and
defended himself in court (on an unrelated matter) with the claim that
he was God.  Unless all of that was just a game, he is not sufficiently
in touch with reality to be a liar.

When I did engage with him it was to try to pin down what he was really
saying and, after years of back-and-forth, he made two unequivocal
statement that, to my mind, render all subsequent discussion pointless.
First, when asked

    "Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
    the 'correct' answer even though P(P) halts?"

He replied:

   "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts."

Second, when talking about axioms and proofs he claims that if

  {A,B,C} |- X    then    {A,B,C,~A} ~|- X

(|- being "proves" and ~|- being "does not prove").

The first shows that he's not talking about that halting problem and the
second that when he says he's "refuted" all the proofs he does not know
what the words mean.  Of course, he can retract these statements at any
time and move on, but he won't.

Some of his more deluded claims look like lies because he back-peddled
on them himself.  His December 2018 claim to have

  "... encoded all of the exact TMD instructions of the Linz Turing
  machine H that correctly decides halting for its fully encoded input
  pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

was rowed-back and eventually claimed to be "poetic licence".  Was it a
lie?  I think his mental illness was simply in a manic phase and he'd
"seen the light" and wanted to tell the world.  Maybe I am being too
kind here, I don't know.

What I do know is that it's pointless talking to someone who has made it
so clear that they are not talking about the halting problem and that
they don't even know what a proof is.

--
Ben.