Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem

On 21 May 2006 18:16:53 -0700, "Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Chris Menzel wrote:
[...]

What does that mean - moderated but not refereed? What's the
difference? You're playing word games again, arbitrarily declaring
that one word, "moderated", applies but another almost identical
word, "refereed", does not. How can you be sure of the difference
between two such similar words and where does it say that admission and
posts are "moderated" but "not refereed"?

You really have no idea what the difference is? If a mailing
list is moderated that means a moderator checks and approves
or disapproves submissions according to various criteria,
which might include things like relevance to the topic.
On the other hand when a paper is referreed the referee is
saying that he's read the paper and think's it's likely
both correct and original.

It's just
arbitrary declarations on your part.

The fact that you don't know the difference between two
words doesn't mean it's an arbitrary declaration on
his part, could be simply ignorance on your part. If
I claim that apples and oranges are different things
is that also an arbitrary declaration?

First you declare there is some need to assure that the papers have
been published and refereed, without justification, then you declare
that FOM is somehow "moderated" but "not refereed", without
justification.

What ***.

So FOM is actually _refereed_? That's very hard to believe -
the idea of a refereed mailing list seems totally contrary
to the whole idea of what a mailing list is intended for,
that being informal communication.

and to suggest otherwise is, at a minimum, disingenuous.

To disagree that such a fine distinction, without any substantiation,
is valid, is to be dishonest?

It's not a fine distinction. It's true he did overlook the
possibility that you simply didn't know the difference.

Gad!! (You still haven't expained your
references to better, best, minimum, etc.)

and in refereed texts e.g. see "A Simple Generator of Incompleteness
Theorems":

[links snipped]

Well, yes, you have a few short, unrefereed posts in FOM

Who says they're unrefereed? This is no more than a stream of baseless
declarations.

You have made countless claims about the depth and originality of your
"axiomatization of all of computer science," even touting it as far
superior to the work of Torkel Franzen, which is regarded by many
logicians as being of the highest quality.

Unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

Someone making claims as
bold and arrogant as yours needs to be able to substantiate them with
some actual research, published or not.

I've presented at least 10 results created by my system, in the form
of various proofs that are way simpler than what Torkel has presented.
Now which is better, simper or more complex? I'm talking about
established principles, not arbitrary declarations as you do.

Now, where have your comments been published, refereed, etc.?

Well, my CV, such as it is, is online for all to see but, really, a
pissing contest would be yet another red herring.

Wait a minute. You asked for my publications and that's so relevant,
and so I say how about yours and that's a pissing contest? See, more
arbitrary declarations - playing games with words.

C-B


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Quantcast