Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Marc Goodman (marc.goodman_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:49:27 GMT

Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:41216F79.3090204@btopenworld.com...
>
>>Hello!
>>
>>You might like to read through the many, many, many posts in these
>>Olcott threads to see how futile your efforts will be. You're up
>>against "invincible ignorance" :-(
>>
>>Simon
>>
>
> Or as Marc Goodman has stated someone who simply has not been
> close to proven wrong yet.

Not true. Some of the proofs you've been given are
correct. Most recently, Daryl McCullough's on 8/17/04
at 2:16AM in message <cfs7rt0e18@drn.newsguy.com> .

Some of the proofs you've been given have also
been incorrect. As I've stated before, the existence
of an incorrect counter-proof does not make your
proof correct.

And then there are other counter-proofs that are
_probably_ correct but haven't been proven with
sufficient rigor or that have one or more steps
left out. These certainly qualify as making you
"close to proven wrong."

Seriously, don't put words in my mouth. If you're
not sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with
something, don't make an assumption. It doesn't
help either of our positions when you make untrue
claims about my statements or beliefs and when I
have to publicly correct those statements.

Think about it this way. There are probably
other people reading this discussion who might
be willing to enter into it as neutrals, or at
least as people who aren't outright attacking
you. You WANT these people involved. But, I'm
sure a lot of them are afraid of being associated
with a kook (and therefore damaging their reputations
and being labelled as kooks themselves) if they
do anything but attack you. When they see you
making comments like the above, they say "Thank
God I didn't get involved." Is that really
what you want?

"A word to the wise is sufficient."

Not once in many hundreds of attempts.
> The main tactic in each of the attempts to prove me wrong has been
> presumption. Reasoning that is constructed as follows, he must be
> wrong therefore he is wrong.
>
>

Relevant Pages