Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:So far correct.On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:A proof is any sequence of statements
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedgeOn 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is.On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:Irrepevant.On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion ofOn 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:The article makes no attempt to prove anything.On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:What specifically do you believe is not proven?On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:What about this paper that I wrote?"big fat ignorant liar" -- DamonCan you show me wrong?
There are no words.
/Flibble
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
a proof?
possibly be more relevant.
It means that when I conclusivelyIrrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.
prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
from incorrect.
technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
is not any actual rebuttal at all.
of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge
I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof.
I have not failed to understand what does not exist.
that are necessarily true and thus impossibly false.But this is not. A proof starts with assumptions that may be true of
No, it is not. Vernacular terms "dog" and "animal" have aquired teirThat dogs are animals is an analytical truthIt doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcalSo how many decades how you carefully studied theNo, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.Your question "What specifically do you believe is notFacts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
basis of all proofs.
philosophical foundation of analytical truth?
truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the
very first things teached and learned.
that does say something about the real world.
Like almost everyone you don't know much aboutAs an analytincal truth says nothing about the real world the
analytical truth.
Depending on the style of the proof one can ither prove thatYet no one ever noticed that the counter-example inputThe core part of those proofs is a constructive specificationAfter studying these things for 22 years I foundNonsense is not a fact.As you respond to my question without answering it it isIt is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
whatever value that H derives. The key element that
all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.
that every conventional proof of the halting problem
never provides an actual input that would do the
opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
decider (PHD) returns.
of that test case.
cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never
actually existed.
It is proven that for every Turing machine there is a counter*Counter-factual there never has been any such an input*It is always the case that the computation the PHDDoesn't matter. Those proofs prove that for any Turing machine there
is embedded within or the function that calls the
PHD that does the opposite. It is never the input.
is an input that proves that the decider is not a halt decider.
This may be difficult to understand.That's right. You have no rebuttal but, lacking comprehension,
A lack of comprehension does not count as a rebuttal.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ // *adapted from bottom of page 319*That is not a syntactically valid sentence and therefore does not
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩--
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation until embedded_H
sees the repeating pattern and transitions to Ĥ.qn.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ state or final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
thus can never do the opposite of whatever embedded_H decides.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.