Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism

On 3/14/2025 12:01 PM, dbush wrote:
    <Snipped mostly garbage>

Good luck trying to show you've refuted a proof that you've gone on record as admitting is correct.

Just because PO can neither get his claims straight or his head out of his ass, is no reason to copy his style of argument:
Unless I missed it, he has (probably by mistake) admitted that the theorem with original definitions of terms is probably correct. That, however, doesn't mean some particular proof of that theorem is necessarily a valid proving.
The history of these nonsense threads show that POs original claim was that a particular proof was bungled. There followed a few thousand rebuttals where people repeatedly point out 1) he didn't know what a proof was, 2) he didn't understand what was to be proved, and 3) he didn't even understand the basic terminology of the field. His brain was not capable of grokking the issues.
Now his personality disorders begin to add to his limited comprehension problems. In particular his radical overestimate of his own intellect and his needed to be worshiped. Rather than trying to learn more and perhaps making a major, minor, or at least a fun contribution with hard work, he embarks with a new two-part strategy: 1) claim the the definitions of terms are wrong and 2) act out the role of a spoiled brat and throw tantrums reminiscent of a disturbed 2 year old.
And, by the way, even if you can show (not that hard) that he is completely fucked between the ears, it will not change a thing in his limited mind.
He has made claims of being on a collision course with death due to cancer. It may be true or it may be subtle crap that enhances his troll attraction, i.e., everybody wants to help him out so he doesn't die with trophies for Best Troll 1st Quarter 21st Century and winner DWIP (Dumb, Whiny, Ignorant, Putz) All Time Usenet.
--
Jeff Barnett