Having skimmed through the paper accessible at the end of the first link, I am leaning towards (1). It contains a barrage of eye-assaulting notation, lots of digressions and repetition, and basically no formal substance (which, for a logic/computation paper, is bizarre).
> Sorry that mathematical notation is causing you problems
For somebody who elsewhere in this thread literally asked HN discussion participants to "not degrade into personal attacks" this was an unbelievably arrogant remark.
What about giving us some summary on how the overall community of researchers in the theory of computation area are thinking of your breakthrough insights? I'm sure there are some CS Ph.D.s in here that are interested in some context.
I suggest you bring the discussion to the appropriate academic forums like conferences and workshops. Doing this via wikipedia and hacker news instead makes it look like your academic peers have decided it's not worth their time so that you are coming here instead.
Once the academic community with researchers in the same field accepts your breakthrough results, it will be easier to convince us that it's legit. And it will come here all by itself, without you having to do active promotion.
(1) does not assume good faith. (2) is not the strongest possible interpretation of what Hewitt said. Listing them here is flamebait and reflects poorly on the community. Shame.
Um...? I was hoping to get some clarification that your account is legit and some references to opinions from the broader research community for your big claims. I came here with an open mind and would have liked to learn something since CS is my passion for decades now.
Unfortunately, by reading your comment history, I learned that you've been self promoting here for quite a while and have always been ignoring questions about references to other people's thoughts on your work. I also learned that there is a wikipedia talk page and apparently the same pattern happened there 5-6 years ago, where you were asked about citations and could only come with self-citation and claims of harrassment. And after sockpuppet edits you got banned there. That's sad, for everybody.
It would be so easy for you to just throw a handful of citations into the mix and let the research speak for itself! You want to go down in CS history as somebody having discovered something big, right? I'd love to see that! Then I could tell my grandkids that I was sitting in the front row! But you won't convince anybody by only doing self-promotion and complaining about "personal attacks". Scientific progress works by convincing the scientific community, and for that you need to engage with it positively.
(1) a troll hiding behind Carl Hewitts name using a veil of CS lingo that's just complex enough to appear legit but is actually nonsense, or
(2) actually Carl Hewitt losing his mind with a bunch of nonsense, or
(3) actually Carl Hewitt who is on to something big and the world has just not caught up with you.
To convince us of (3), have your theories been discussed at related conferences and what does the community make of them?