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

On 5/28/25 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

Nope

 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.
 

Nope.
What is shown is that you only read the Cliff-Notes version of the proof and claim to find problems in the summaries that are not in the actual proofs.
This makes you just a pathological liar.
Your world is just filled with you beleiving your own self-contradictory lies.