1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Rich

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 2 22:46:33 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/2/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

    The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps. >>>>>>> So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that >>>>>>> this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important details. >>>>>>
    No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an
    arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a
    proven statement (which you don't understand)


    You can't correct my error because you know that you have no
    understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
    always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
    correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.



    Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself
    to be a LIAR.

    You just proved that you are clueless.

    Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar?

    You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to
    understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it
    says, just like you always do.


    Dishonest dodge. I just looked up my rebuttal again.


    So? You still haven't shown you understand what was actually being said.

    YOU are not a good judge of truth, you have proven it, as you have
    proven yourself to be just a dishonest liar.

    Or, are you going to show the nonsense proof that you believe shows
    Godel wrong?


    You logic is just so full of holes, it could be used as swiss cheese.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 2 22:23:32 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

    The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps.
    So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that
    this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important details.

    No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an
    arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a
    proven statement (which you don't understand)


    You can't correct my error because you know that you have no
    understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
    always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
    correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.



    Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself to
    be a LIAR.

    You just proved that you are clueless.

    Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar?

    You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to
    understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it
    says, just like you always do.


    I have explained it in the past, but you will not listen, because you
    have brainwashed yourself into beliving your own lies

    Until you either provide the Diagonalization proof you said you had, or

    *I never freaking said that I freaking had this*

    So you admit to claiming things that you do not know?

    That is just as bad.

    Remember, you said:

    Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
    Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.


    So, that seems to say you know a proof that proves something, I guess
    you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

    I guess we should also consider EVERYTHING that you claim "must be true"
    is likely just another of your damned lies.


    I know that it does prove that G is unprovable yet is
    horse shit because it totally hides why G is unprovable.


    G is unprovable, because there is no finite proof of it, and you seem to
    agree to that.

    But G is also true, because it can not be false, and there *IS* an
    infinite logic sequence that can be done in PA that shows it to be true.

    Also, because G is a statement about the existance of a finite number
    with a specific computable property, it WILL be either True or False. It
    seems you logic doesn't want to accept such ideas, because you logic can
    only work on much simpler systems (if at all).

    YOU are the one full of Horse Shit because you don't understand logic,
    and you even contradict your own definitions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 2 23:26:35 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/2/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

    The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps. >>>>>>>>> So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that >>>>>>>>> this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important
    details.

    No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an >>>>>>>> arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a >>>>>>>> proven statement (which you don't understand)


    You can't correct my error because you know that you have no
    understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
    always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
    correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.



    Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself >>>>>> to be a LIAR.

    You just proved that you are clueless.

    Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar?

    You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to
    understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it
    says, just like you always do.


    Dishonest dodge. I just looked up my rebuttal again.


    So? You still haven't shown you understand what was actually being said.


    I posted another whole thread that skipped his
    steps and proved that his conclusion is wrong.
    Reply only to this: *Tarski didn't understand truth-maker theory*


    Why? Youtr logic has always be faulty.

    And where is the thread by that title?

    I think you are lying again, or at least stretching the truth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 2 23:27:41 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/2/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

    The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps. >>>>>>>>> So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that >>>>>>>>> this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important
    details.

    No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an >>>>>>>> arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a >>>>>>>> proven statement (which you don't understand)


    You can't correct my error because you know that you have no
    understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
    always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
    correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.



    Nope, I WON'T correct your error, because you have proved yourself >>>>>> to be a LIAR.

    You just proved that you are clueless.

    Why, becasue I won't help a proven liar?

    You have proven that you do not have the necessary background to
    understand it, and even if you did you would just LIE about what it
    says, just like you always do.


    Dishonest dodge. I just looked up my rebuttal again.


    So? You still haven't shown you understand what was actually being said.


    I posted another whole thread that skipped his
    steps and proved that his conclusion is wrong.
    Reply only to this: *Tarski didn't understand truth-maker theory*


    And where is the thread by that EXACT subhect.

    You don't even seem to know what you said.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)