Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

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 Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within