Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 2025-05-31 10:03:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

On 31/05/2025 10:42, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-30 17:27:05 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/30/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

 <snip>
 

As far as I can recall, Olcott's ramblings never go within discus- throwing distance of a potentially erroneous step.

 There is no *INPUT* D to termination analyzer H
that can possibly do the opposite of whatever
value that H returns.

 We can apply Truing'c construction to every Truing machine and
prove that no Turing machine is a halting decider. With a
similar construction many other problems about Turing machine
behaviour can be proven uncomputable, too.

 Indeed. In fact, if I'm reading Mr Olcott's retort correctly...
 Turing: imagine a program P...
Turing: ...argument goes here...
Turing: ...and it turns out that P can't exist.
Olcott: Turing is wrong, because P can't exist.
 I /seeeeee.../

One problem is that Turing uses ordinary logic but Olcott does not like
it. Olcott apparently would want to use somekind of paraconsisten logic
but doesn't know any. Depending on details that Olcott apparently does
not know an indirect proof may be invalid in a paraconsistent logic.
--
Mikko