Sujet : Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 29. May 2025, 18:40:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:
On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:
On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
problem proof is wrong.
>
But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the proof proves is correct?
>
It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be able to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>
<snip>
>
See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]
And it seems you still can't.
I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof. Reading it again would not magically insert a lucid, cogent explanation of why you think you're right and the conventional halting problem proof is wrong.
[1] Would you agree that tautologies are always tautologous?
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within