Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/22/2025 10:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 22/05/2025 16:37, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2025 1:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 21 May 2025 18:14:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D that
can ACTUALLY DO the opposite of whatever value that H
returns making it impossible for H to decide D.

>
No, the proof assumes there is a *decider* and then shows exactly *how* to construct a counterexample.
>

>
Yet no one ever bothers to notice that
this counter-example input cannot possibly
actually do the opposite of whatever value
that its decider returns.

 It is because we do notice that we know it's a proof by contradiction. You continue to fail to understand this very basic, very simple point.
 

*The proof by contradiction CANNOT EVEN BE CREATED*
I dared you to define an input D to termination
analyzer H that actually does the opposite of
whatever value that H returns AND YOU FAILED !!!
ARE YOU IGNORANT OR DISHONEST?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer