Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)

Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott:

On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.

>

I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.

>
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
>

I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people
that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace
through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding
none.

 

You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature.
We found many errors.
>

 All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere
dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is
inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks.
 The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly
disagree with verified facts.
 

No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'.
Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that they must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them.