Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless

On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>
The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps.
So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that
this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important details.

>
No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a proven statement (which you don't understand)
>

>
You can't correct my error because you know that you have no understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.
>
>

>
Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself to be a LIAR.
>

You just proved that you are clueless.

Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar?
You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it says, just like you always do.

 

I have explained it in the past, but you will not listen, because you have brainwashed yourself into beliving your own lies
>
Until you either provide the Diagonalization proof you said you had, or

 *I never freaking said that I freaking had this*

So you admit to claiming things that you do not know?
That is just as bad.
Remember, you said:

 Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.
 

So, that seems to say you know a proof that proves something, I guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking about.
I guess we should also consider EVERYTHING that you claim "must be true" is likely just another of your damned lies.

 I know that it does prove that G is unprovable yet is
horse shit because it totally hides why G is unprovable.
 

G is unprovable, because there is no finite proof of it, and you seem to agree to that.
But G is also true, because it can not be false, and there *IS* an infinite logic sequence that can be done in PA that shows it to be true.
Also, because G is a statement about the existance of a finite number with a specific computable property, it WILL be either True or False. It seems you logic doesn't want to accept such ideas, because you logic can only work on much simpler systems (if at all).
YOU are the one full of Horse Shit because you don't understand logic, and you even contradict your own definitions.