Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #34246

Re: Done with Olcott.

Show key headers only | View raw

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>
> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
<cut>
> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
<cut>
> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...

I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
or the other.

It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Done with Olcott. Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-05-25 16:56 +0000
  Re: Done with Olcott. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-05-25 21:06 +0100
    Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 15:11 -0500
      Re: Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 15:40 -0500
    Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? CORRECTION olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 16:18 -0500
    Re: Done with Olcott. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-05-26 03:33 +0100
      Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 21:43 -0500
        Re: Done with Olcott. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 23:23 -0400
      Re: Done with Olcott. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-05-26 16:42 +0100
        Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 11:31 -0500
          Re: Done with Olcott. Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-05-26 09:51 -0700
      Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 11:21 -0500
        Re: Done with Olcott. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-05-26 13:18 -0700
    Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? (final draft) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 16:25 -0500
  Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 22:02 -0400
    Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 21:57 -0500
      Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 23:13 -0400
        Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 22:25 -0500
          Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-26 08:13 -0400
            Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores(Proxy inputs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 09:18 -0500
              Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores(Proxy inputs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-26 19:29 -0400
  Re: Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V11)(Proxy inputs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 12:15 -0500
  Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 12:52 -0500

csiph-web