1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • "big fat ignorant liar"

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 19:16:08 2025
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Mon Jun 9 20:16:04 2025
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 10 07:15:06 2025
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts


    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jun 10 13:45:39 2025
    On 6/10/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
    facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts


    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?


    EVERYTHING you claimed as a conclusion.


    You said:
    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
    factsThe huge spike in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 413 ppm has no
    other possible cause besides human activity.

    The conclusion is not PROVEN, you only admit that you can't think of any
    other possible casue.

    The fact that historically, the earth is cooler that normally has been
    over geological time lines doesn't seem to be important to you. Look
    over periods of millions of years, and it is clear that we have been in
    a cooler spell recently.

    See: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705


    Note, you do have evidence of a condition. There is strong evidence of
    the likely source of that condition.

    That is NOT "Proof" in the logical sense of the word.

    Note, the fact that the earth returning to more "normal" (in the long
    view) conditions would be disastrous for our current conditions, say
    that we should really be working to do what we can to slow that return
    rather than accelerate it, but trying to assign "blame" doesn't relly
    help with working on the solution.

    A big part of the problem is that we don't really understand many parts
    of the process that control the cycles, and so can't prove how much a
    given change will affect the system.

    This is the problem of streaching your claim to say it is a "proof",
    because by doing so, when it isn't, you tarnish the data, and make it
    less convincing as part of the argument that shows that human activity
    is likely a significant factor to the recent climate changes, and that
    further changes have a good chance of tipping the balence (if they
    haven't already gone past the tipping point) that drives us to a new equalibrium point that is less desirable for us.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Jun 11 12:19:34 2025
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts >>>
    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts



    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything. Most of it is about the
    carbon dioxide concentration, which is usualy not regarded as an aspect
    of climate. One diagram shows a clear but small chage of temperature
    during 120 years.

    Promised in the title but not given are proofs of "anthropogenic"
    and "severe".

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Jun 11 13:21:59 2025
    On 6/11/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
    facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts


    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
    It proves that CO2 has increased 126-fold faster in
    60 years than the next fastest time in the last 800,000
    years where it took 7,537 years to increase as much.

    No, it doesn't "prove" that fact, it cites a source that says it.


    Pieter Tans 2019 (lead scientist of NOAA's Global
    Greenhouse Gas Reference Network agrees

    "There is no currently known climate science that
    could possibly attribute the current 100-foldfaster
    increase of global CO2 to any natural process that
    would have gone undetected." Pieter Tans 2019
    (lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

    Which again, doesn't PROVE anything, but is just an appeal to athority,

    Your problem is you don't know what it means to actually PROVE
    something, because you chose to not learn the basics of logic.


    By your "logic", we can prove just about anything we want, we just need
    to find a source of some meaningful LOOKING data, and someone with a bit
    of credetials to make a claim.

    Sorry, that just shows that you don't understand the nature of what it
    takes to PROVE something,

    The Climate Change deniers can come up with much more "data" and
    "experts" that just counteract what you say, so if you claim you have
    "proved" it, so have they, amd thus you are showing that your idea of
    logic allows for the whole system to just be contradictory,



    Most of it is about the
    carbon dioxide concentration, which is usualy not regarded as an aspect
    of climate. One diagram shows a clear but small chage of temperature
    during 120 years.

    Promised in the title but not given are proofs of "anthropogenic"
    and "severe".




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jun 12 11:23:00 2025
    On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts >>>>>
    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts



    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

    On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
    a proof?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jun 12 18:41:49 2025
    On 6/12/25 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
    verifiable facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts


    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

    On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
    a proof?


    Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

    Since your "fact" hasn't been verified, but debunked, because it is
    based on a bit fat category error, and unsound logic, you are showing
    your stupidity.

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
    verifiable facts

    Nope, "Proven" in this context is a bridge too far, at least for the
    level you are claiming.


    You are not going to be able to glance at a couple of
    words of that paper to artificially contrive a fake
    rebuttal without looking ridiculous.

    The paper conclusively proves that the recent atmospheric
    increases of CO2 are caused by humans.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Jun 13 13:37:48 2025
    On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts



    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

    On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
    a proof?

    Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

    Irrepevant. Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
    proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.

    As you respond to my question without answering it it is
    obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Jun 15 12:19:10 2025
    On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts



    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove". >>>>>>>
    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

    On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
    a proof?

    Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

    Irrepevant.

    That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
    possibly be more relevant.

    Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is.

    It means that when I conclusively
    prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
    correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
    from incorrect.

    Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.

    Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
    proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.

    Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
    basis of all proofs.

    No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.

    As you respond to my question without answering it it is
    obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.

    It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
    termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
    whatever value that H derives. The key element that
    all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.

    Nonsense is not a fact. The expression "any termination analyzer H"
    does not mean anything in this context, which does not have the
    definitions that would give it a meaning.

    The key element is that in the context of all convetional HP proofs
    for every decider it is possible to construct a program that halts
    if the decider rejects it and does not halt if the decider rejects
    it, which proves that the decider is not a halting decider.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jun 16 11:21:44 2025
    On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon

    There are no words.

    /Flibble

    Can you show me wrong?

    Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

    What about this paper that I wrote?

    Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts

    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts



    Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove". >>>>>>>>>
    What specifically do you believe is not proven?

    The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

    That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

    On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
    a proof?

    Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

    Irrepevant.

    That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
    possibly be more relevant.

    Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is.

    It means that when I conclusively
    prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
    correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
    from incorrect.

    Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.

    When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
    technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
    is not any actual rebuttal at all.

    Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedge
    of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge
    I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof.
    I have not failed to understand what does not exist.

    Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
    proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.

    Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
    basis of all proofs.

    No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.

    So how many decades how you carefully studied the
    philosophical foundation of analytical truth?

    It doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcal
    truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the
    very first things teached and learned.

    As you respond to my question without answering it it is
    obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.

    It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
    termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
    whatever value that H derives. The key element that
    all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.

    Nonsense is not a fact.

    After studying these things for 22 years I found
    that every conventional proof of the halting problem
    never provides an actual input that would do the
    opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
    decider (PHD) returns.

    The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification
    of that test case.

    It is always the case that the computation the PHD
    is embedded within or the function that calls the
    PHD that does the opposite. It is never the input.

    Doesn't matter. Those proofs prove that for any Turing machine there
    is an input that proves that the decider is not a halt decider. That
    is sufficient to prove that no Turing machine is a halt decider for
    Turing machines.

    The expression "any termination analyzer H"
    does not mean anything in this context, which does not have the
    definitions that would give it a meaning.

    A termination analyzer is required to report on the
    sequence of state transitions that its input specifies.

    An analyzer is required to report on the program that the used wants
    to be analyed if that program is in the scope of the analyzer. How
    the input shall be constructed to enable that must be told in the
    instruction manual of the analyzer.

    The key element is that in the context of all convetional HP proofs
    for every decider it is possible to construct a program that halts
    if the decider rejects it and does not halt if the decider rejects
    it, which proves that the decider is not a halting decider.

    Yet it is not possible that this program is an input to
    the PHD. Unless it is an actual input then the whole
    conventional HP proof fails.

    That is not true about every PHD. In particular, it is not true about
    Turing machines, and the conventional proofs don't prove about anything
    else.

    --
    Mikko

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