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 [AWARE] 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.