Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: >parr\(*> (gniKyruaL_at_tenretnitb.moc)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:45:15 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OWqOc.154819$OB3.83130@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| The only reason that not everyone
| has agreed with everything
| that I have said is that they don't
| bother to examine what I am
| saying at the same level detail that
| makes what I say become true.
| I a very subtle level of detail
| nearly everything that I have said
| is fully true.

A. Above, you provided a number of assertions:

1. "nearly everything I have said is fully true"

2. "Not everyone has agreed with everything I have
    said"

I understand both those, and I agree with them, and the second one
naturally follows from the first.

3. "they don't ... examine what I am saying"

Up to a point, most of us have examined what you have been saying.
In sci.logic, some have reeled back in disgust from the illogical way
you present your case. If you don't believe me, reread the replies
you have been receiving. In comp.theory they have examined what you
write and have found it wanting in computer theory. If you don't
believe me, reread the replies you have been reading. In
comp.lang.c++, to be quite honest, I haven't analysed their reaction,
so you're off the hook on that one.

Regardless of the above, my observation is that _you_, Peter Olcott,
are the one who doesn't bother to examine what others are saying.

B. Let's now examine the more subtle points you bring out:

4. "what I am saying has a [implied from 'at the same'] level [of]
detail that
    makes what I am saying become true"

How are we to understand this? My understanding follows.
If you statements are not examined in a sufficient level of detail by
everyone, they remain untrue.
If everyone examines what you are saying in sufficient detail, they
change from being false to true.

5. The only reason [2.] is [that] [3.]

In other words, ignoring the qualifying stuff relating to subtlety,
you are saying people don't understand because they don't examine.

You do not seem to be taking into account the number of times, the
content, and the extent to which people have demonstrated (e.g., by
rephrasing, by asking for clarification, by showing you exactly where
your errors are, and why).

I beg to suggest that people do not understand what you are saying is
because it is so confusing that, even assuming correctness, it would
be incomprehensible.

6. "I[n] a very subtle level of detail, [1.]"

How are we to understand this? Is there some unsubtle level of
detail which causes [1.] to be inverted? If so, is the inversion of
'fully', or of 'nearly everything'? To put it another way, is it the
case that:
  "at an unsubtle level of detail, nearly everything you have said is
fully untrue"
or
  "at an unsubtle level of detail, nearly nothing of what you have
said is fully true"
?

I trust the distinction between the above given alternatives is not
too subtle for you to understand.

Whichever way it is to be interpreted, your own words say that,
unsubtly, what you say is untrue.

At last we seem to have found some common ground again.
~~~~~~~~~
I trust I have done justice to what you wrote. I have examined it
extreme and careful detail. I have searched for the subtleties of
meaning.

By doing so, I find what you said above, while not fully true (as you
yourself admit) is, in part, subtly true. 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages