Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/28/2025 7:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 28/05/2025 18:33, olcott wrote:

I am not solving the halting problem.

>
Clearly.

>
But once upon a time he was.  For example, in this exchange:
>
Me: Recent posts have said that you really do claim to have a halting
     decider.  Have you extended your claim or was that a
     misunderstanding?
>
PO: I really do have a halting decider.
>
I think it's useful to know that trying to have any discussion with the
OP will eventually feel like nailing jelly to a wall.

 Aug 10, 2020
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/XRw3WhADb8I/m/JOwRQyV6BQAJ
 

Tarski undefinability can be easily dismissed once the
terms: "truthmaker" and "truthbearer" are fully understood.
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
As soon as one is fully away that epistemological antinomies
are simply not truth bearers and thus must be rejected on
this basis the Gödel and Tarski proofs utterly cease to function.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer