On 8/23/25 7:43 PM, Mr Flibble BSc (Hons) wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decision a
halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input, reports to
its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact opposite
causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of execution with simulation.
/Flibble
His problem is his world view ASSUMES that the truth can be detected,
and thus somehow H can give the right answer.
If that is true, since H can't simulate its input to the final state,
the only right answer is non-halting, and the definition of that must be changed to allow that.
Of course, changing the definition is just a LIE and shows that his
system is actually self-contradictory, and thus exploded, or in his view
since you can't have contradictions, his system just doesn't exist, but
he presumes it does, and thus his whole form of logic doesn't exist.
That is a simple description of his insanity.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)