On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He does
>>>> not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>
>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>
>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either case
>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>
>
> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
> position that:

Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
think about it, although he does not have time immediately.

When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.

On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>
>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>>
>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either case
>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>
>>
>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>> position that:
>
> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
> the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>
> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>
>

We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this and
>>>>>>>>>> not see
>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more indirect.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either
>>>>> case
>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>> position that:
>>
>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I think
>> the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
>> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
>> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>>
>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>
>>
>
> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>

So the vote is still thousands against what 4?

You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.

On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this
>>>>>>>>>>> and not see
>>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in either
>>>>>> case
>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>>> position that:
>>>
>>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I
>>> think the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor Olcott,
>>> Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my thoughts and
>>> think about it, although he does not have time immediately.
>>>
>>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>
>
> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>
> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.

With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 16/02/24 23:56, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>>
>>
>> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>>
>> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.
>
> With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
> With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.
>

It is possible that two cranks can believe the same thing and both be
cranks. It is also possible that a crank can get a degree. Authority
does not imply correctness.

On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/24 23:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:25 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/02/24 01:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 5:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 22:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/02/24 21:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 2:12 PM, Shvili, the Kookologist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-12, olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-contradictory inputs must be rejected as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math and computer science don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious... How can you possibly write things like this
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not see
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are (or at least will be seen as) a deluded crackpot?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This proves that Gödel did not understand that*
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After you acknowledge that you understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>> antinomies cannot be used as the basis of any proof I will
>>>>>>>>>>> elaborate further.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Linz paper is all concrete computer science. There are no
>>>>>>>>>> "epistemological antinomies", only computer science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PhD computer science professors
>>>>>>>>> Stoddart, Hehner and Macias disagree thus proving that
>>>>>>>>> I am not a crank.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlike you, I actually read the Macias paper you referenced. He
>>>>>>>> does not agree with you and he does not prove anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other two directly agree with me Macias is a little more
>>>>>>> indirect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Now run BAD(BAD) and consider what happens: ...
>>>>>>>     Note that these are the only two possible cases, and in
>>>>>>> either case
>>>>>>>     (whether HALT returns 0 or 1), HALT′s behavior is incorrect,
>>>>>>>     i.e., HALT fails to answer the Halting Problem correctly
>>>>>>> (Macias:2014)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Macias agrees the halting problem cannot be solved by any program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Three PhD computer science professors agree with my 2004
>>>>> position that:
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I wrote to Professor Hehner to discuss the reasons I
>>>> think the halting problem is unsolvable. Unlike Non-Professor
>>>> Olcott, Professor Hehner said he is actually willing to read my
>>>> thoughts and think about it, although he does not have time
>>>> immediately.
>>>>
>>>> When I write to Non-Professor Olcott, all I get is an irrelevant
>>>> copy-pasted reply that does not indicate any conscious thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have exchanged fifty emails, he does agree with me.
>>>
>>
>> So the vote is still thousands against what 4?
>>
>> You still lose the fallacious argument based on authority.
>
> With deductive inference it is a fallacy.
> With inductive inference it proves that I am not a crank.
>

Since your statement that you are claim is just wrong, you are just
proving yourself a crank to be continuing to claim it.'

You can't "prove" a false statement, on show that your logic system is
broken.

So, you are just proving that you ARE a crank, and that you don't know
how to use propber logic.

You are just proving this to the whole world.