Re: "big fat ignorant liar"

On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
 There are no words.
 /Flibble

 Can you show me wrong?
 Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

 What about this paper that I wrote?
 Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts  

 Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

 What specifically do you believe is not proven?

 The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

 That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

 On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
a proof?

 Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

 Irrepevant.

 That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
possibly be more relevant.

Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is.

It means that when I conclusively
prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
from incorrect.

Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.

Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.

 Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
basis of all proofs.

No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.

As you respond to my question without answering it it is
obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.

 It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
whatever value that H derives. The key element that
all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.

Nonsense is not a fact. The expression "any termination analyzer H"
does not mean anything in this context, which does not have the
definitions that would give it a meaning.
The key element is that in the context of all convetional HP proofs
for every decider it is possible to construct a program that halts
if the decider rejects it and does not halt if the decider rejects
it, which proves that the decider is not a halting decider.
--
Mikko