Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable

On 5/6/2025 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 06/05/2025 16:38, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

These aren't particularly difficult things to comprehend.  As I keep
saying, you ought to show a lot more respect for people who are
mathematically educated.

 I concur.
 As someone who is not particularly mathematically educated (I have an A- level in the subject, but that's all), I tend to steer well clear of mathematical debates, although I have occasionally dipped a toe.
 I have *enormous* respect for those who know their tensors from their manifolds and their conjectures from their eigenvalues, even though it's all Greek to me.
 But to understand the Turing proof requires little if any mathematical knowledge. It requires only the capacity for clear thinking.
 Having been on the receiving end of lengthy Usenet diatribes by cranks in my own field, I don't hold out much hope for our current culprits developing either the capacity for clear thought or any measure of respect for expertise any time soon.
 Nor do I believe they are capable of understanding proof by contradiction, which is just about the easiest kind of proof there is. In fact, the most surprising aspect of this whole affair is that

(according to Mike) Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in the proof published by Dr Linz. How can he get that and not get contradiction? Proof by contradiction is /much/ easier.
 

When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
When the input finite string of x86 machine code of
DD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language the emulated DD cannot possibly reach
its contradictory part.
How can no one here get that?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer