Re: What it would take...

On 13/05/2025 04:05, Mike Terry wrote:

On 12/05/2025 19:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

[Can we steelman HHH(DDD)...?]

<Ben snipped. Sorry, Ben.>

>
Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on Linz's argument could conceivably have merit.

 What I imagine has happened here is that you've listened to certain posters and taken what they say too uncritically.

Maintenant nous sommes getting somewhere.

PO often suggests that people who aren't here are supporting him somehow.  He likes to reference professors or people who have published papers or other comments saying things that he thinks support his case, but he is totally incapable of correctly assessing their work and what they're saying.  In any case that is just an appeal to authority to try to shut down opposition.
 Then there's Mr Flibble and his posts about category errors and all.  There are not any category errors in the Linz proof and his posts should not suggest that there is any merit in what PO is saying.  One problem for you I think is that you don't understand the Linz proof sufficiently to judge for your self on each post you read.

Undoubtedly the case.

I posted background on what PO is doing re. the Linz proof, and I probably said something like "*IF* PO successfully delivered a program H which correctly decides its corresponding Linz H^, that would be a problem for the Linz proof".

Ha! I knew it! That weasel Mike Terry is at the root of all this!

But I also made clear that his HHH does /not/ do what is needed.

No doubt by then my eyes had glazed over. Next time I'll try to stay awake a bit longer.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within