Sujet : Re: And the Richer Petard Horror Show resumes ...
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Oct 2024, 14:09:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <39f1a350cac0a8431753486526da1c35f458df65@i2pn2.org>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
... after a short break.
Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which are you?
Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.
Note, I have several times offered a "cease-fire", if he refrains from just repeating his disproven statements, and actually engage in dialog about the issues, I will stop calling him the liar that he is being.
He has continually refused, I think because he knows he wouldn't have anything to say at that point.
Peter -- you surely have better things to do. No-one sensible
is reading the repetitive stuff. Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
sensible is swamped by the insults. Free advice, worth roughly what you
are paying for it: step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made. No more than one
side of paper. Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
fact, trying to help.
It seems that Peter DOESN'T have something better to do (in his mind).
The fact is, he DOES have something else he wants to do, but doesn't seem to understand how to do it, so is trying to work on a "smaller" problem to figure out what he actually means with his idea (some new definitions of truth and logic). The problem is, he just doesn't understand how Truth and Logic are defined, so doesn't understand that to work on the existing problems, he needs to use the existing definitions, not the new definitions he wants to use.
My guess is that if he does built the logic systems he is thinking of, the problems he is trying to combat here just don't exist, as his logic system won't support the needed operations to create these fields of logic, like the full set of the Natural Numbers.
If he would just abandon these side projects that he has made his focus, perhaps he could work on his actual goal, and see where it will lead.