Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135517 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000
Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 02:32 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:35 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:19 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:56 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:18 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:39 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:39 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:25 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:22 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:31 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:48 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:08 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:54 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:17 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:33 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:33 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:44 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:42 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:10 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:52 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:26 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:23 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 19:59 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:19 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:03 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:25 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:35 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:51 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:13 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:43 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:38 +0100
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:53 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:00 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 02:16 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-11-14 03:08 +0042
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 03:52 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:57 +0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:06 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- Ben olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:18 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 21:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-14 06:21 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:59 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 17:20 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 04:04 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:36 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0000
Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:29 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:04 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:16 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:41 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:04 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:10 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:21 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 02:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 20:55 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 21:01 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:10 +0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 22:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:13 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:56 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 02:21 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:49 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:01 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:35 -0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:29 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:40 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 05:03 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:48 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 14:39 +0000
Halt Deciders cannot report on the behavior of their caller olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:12 -0600
Kaz say that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:19 -0600
Kaz PROVES that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:25 -0600
Who agrees that Kaz is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:26 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:12 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:14 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:47 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:16 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:22 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 19:02 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:05 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:11 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:42 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:24 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:52 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:10 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:40 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 15:51 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:04 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:23 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 09:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 16:32 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:48 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:42 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:48 -0600
How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 22:46 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:02 -0600
Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 23:15 +0100
Re: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:54 -0600
What did you do before 2001 ? (Was: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 09:50 +0100
What are top ten books in set theory? (Re: What did you do before 2001 ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 10:16 +0100
Slim Fermats Last Theorem (FLT) only for Lean4? (Was: What are top ten books in set theory?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 11:14 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:15 -0800
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:58 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:35 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:48 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:57 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:31 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:39 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:54 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:23 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 6d] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:13 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:05 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 14:43 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:51 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 10:44 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 09:32 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 13:28 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 13:14 -0800
human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:23 -0600
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 14:41 -0800
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 17:03 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 17:32 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 12:10 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-01 21:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-02 14:56 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:33 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-02 16:04 +0000
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:47 -0600
The quality of reviewers on USENET olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:11 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:50 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correct refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:44 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 02:45 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-01 23:42 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-27 00:04 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:29 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10f885k$3498l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135517 |
On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? > > I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 14:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10f8c83$34g43$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135627 |
On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? >> >> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. > > Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get > anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks. > > André > why not today tbh? ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either... unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂 -- hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 17:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f8dft$35snn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135631 |
On 11/14/2025 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? >>> >>> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. >> >> Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get >> anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks. >> >> André >> > > why not today tbh? > > ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either... > > unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and > because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂 > My primary reason for posting here was always to establish copyright priority I will keep doing that until I ever get published in one or more academic journals. The key issue with getting fair reviews is that the technical experts in the field are not open to the idea that their foundational assumptions might be incorrect. They always take challenges to these assumptions as they weren't memorized them properly. Philosophers that are totally open to testing foundations generally don't have sufficient technical skill. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 04:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251114195648.251@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135632 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/14/2025 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? >>>> >>>> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. >>> >>> Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get >>> anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> why not today tbh? >> >> ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either... >> >> unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and >> because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂 >> > > My primary reason for posting here was always > to establish copyright priority I will keep You have more than enough redundancy over 20 years for that. There are many instances of great thinkers who just wrote one thing one time on a few sheets of paper, and went down in history as the originators of that. E.g. Évariste Galois, aged 20, supposedly the night before taking part in a duel in which he died, suspecting his own demise, he hastily wrote down all his ideas that we now known as Galois Field Theory. He didn't have to plaster it on poles and bulletin boards all over town for 20 years. (He would have had to start upon being born.) > doing that until I ever get published in one > or more academic journals. Funny, earlier you wrote: PO> No one is going to publish my work on the halting PO> problem. Once they see the title of the paper they PO> dismiss it as ridiculous. You seem to be vaccillating between no confidence and overconfidence. Being published in a journal will not happen spontaneously out of Usenet postings, at any rate. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 23:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f93hl$3aiar$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135637 |
On 11/14/2025 10:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month?
>>>>>
>>>>> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30.
>>>>
>>>> Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get
>>>> anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> why not today tbh?
>>>
>>> ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either...
>>>
>>> unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and
>>> because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂
>>>
>>
>> My primary reason for posting here was always
>> to establish copyright priority I will keep
>
> You have more than enough redundancy over 20 years for that.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
*Updated words*
Simulating termination analyzer H simulates
N statements of D according to the semantics of
the C programming language. H does this until it
matches a correct non-halting behavior pattern.
This pattern conclusively proves that the simulated
D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state for any value of N.
Then H aborts its simulation and returns 0 on the
basis that that its input D specifies a non-halting
sequence of instructions.
> There are many instances of great thinkers who just wrote one thing
> one time on a few sheets of paper, and went down in history as
> the originators of that.
>
> E.g. Évariste Galois, aged 20, supposedly the night before taking
> part in a duel in which he died, suspecting his own demise, he hastily
> wrote down all his ideas that we now known as Galois Field Theory.
>
When anyone challenges the foundations of a field
the is always great resistance. People accept
these foundations as if they were the infallible
word of God.
> He didn't have to plaster it on poles and bulletin boards all over
> town for 20 years. (He would have had to start upon being born.)
>
>> doing that until I ever get published in one
>> or more academic journals.
>
> Funny, earlier you wrote:
>
> PO> No one is going to publish my work on the halting
> PO> problem. Once they see the title of the paper they
> PO> dismiss it as ridiculous.
>
> You seem to be vaccillating between no confidence and overconfidence.
>
> Being published in a journal will not happen spontaneously out of
> Usenet postings, at any rate.
>
I needed people to help me to understand
which words are the most effective. That
does not work when everyone begins with
complete certainty that I am wrong.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251115064228.304@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135643 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 10:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2025 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get
>>>>> anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> why not today tbh?
>>>>
>>>> ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either...
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and
>>>> because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂
>>>>
>>>
>>> My primary reason for posting here was always
>>> to establish copyright priority I will keep
>>
>> You have more than enough redundancy over 20 years for that.
>>
>
><MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
^^
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> would never stop running unless aborted then
^^^^
Did you notice your own if / then here?
The conditions between them never occur when D is the diagonal program
against H. H cannot correctly decide.
So you have "if false then ...".
This is always true:
P Q P -> Q
-----------------
F F T
F T T
T F F <-
T T T
The only combination of inputs for which "if P then Q" is false
is when P is true and Q is false. In particular, whenever P
is false, P -> Q is true.
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
Never mind that "P -> Q" is always true when P is false,
what you actually have above is "P -> P" which is always true!
Your statement is essentially just saying "If H decides correctly, it can
correctly report", which are the same thing; there is nothing to
disagree with.
>
> *Updated words*
> Simulating termination analyzer H simulates
> N statements of D according to the semantics of
> the C programming language. H does this until it
> matches a correct non-halting behavior pattern.
> This pattern conclusively proves that the simulated
> D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
> statement final halt state for any value of N.
No halting pattern could ever be correct in the diagonal test case.
Separately from that, even buggered it it up in your Halt7.c
work even for non-diagonal test cases.
The test case
void DDD(void) { HHH(DDD); return; }
halts when we executed from main. HHH(DDD) could return 1 and it
would still halt---it is not diagonal! Yet HHH still detects a
non-halting pattern and returns 0.
We can complete the above DDD with the following trivial HHH,
which decides correctly:
// abort simulation after zero steps, pronouncing it halting
int HHH(ptr P) { return 1; }
Yet the complicated HHH actually given falters, wrongly returning 0.
> Then H aborts its simulation and returns 0 on the
> basis that that its input D specifies a non-halting
> sequence of instructions.
Unfortunately, your theory requires acceptance of an arbitrary doctrine
that the diagonal case D specifies two different behaviors;
tht it is terminating when simulated by UTM(D) but non-terminating when
simulated by H.
When you regard the design of your non-terminatation--detection
criteria as infallibly correct, you end up with the contradiction that D
is being called non-terminating, even though D demonstrably terminates.
The sane person would accept this as the conclusion of
reductio-ad-absurdum argument: D cannot be both terminating and
non-terminating, because every machine either halts or does not:
there is no non-determinism in it. Thus D being both terminating
and not is a logical contradiction, meaning thatthe assumptiont that the
non-termination-detection criteria are correct muwst be wrong.
It's as if you not trying to overthrow the Halting Problem,
but only using the Halting Problem as a pretext for trying
to invalidate the /reductio ad absurdum/ technique of inference!
If you could do that /that/, you would be much more famous
than someone who toppled the Halting Problem!
> When anyone challenges the foundations of a field
> the is always great resistance. People accept
> these foundations as if they were the infallible
> word of God.
Can you cite three examples of someone successfully challenging major
mathematical claim that was wrongly held by all non-cranky
mathematicians to be a theorem rather than just a conjecture?
> I needed people to help me to understand
> which words are the most effective.
So, like a marketing focus group for words?
> does not work when everyone begins with
> complete certainty that I am wrong.
Yes, sometimes macrketing focus groups tell the business that their
product is shit. Oops!
See, when your ideas are true, you don't need to find effective words
for convicing dumb people who are swayed by the right words.
Smart people pick up the idea and can follow its logic to see that it is
true, regardless of it not being given in the best words.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 10:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met |
| Message-ID | <10fa9pb$3k1o0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135664 |
On 11/15/2025 9:27 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/14/2025 10:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2025 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 11/14/25 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-13 17:08, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why November 30th? Now works equally well. You're unlikely to get >>>>>> anywhere new with Olcott in the next couple of weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> why not today tbh? >>>>> >>>>> ur not gunna get anywhere with polcott by the 30th either... >>>>> >>>>> unfortunately he's gunna keep saying wrong things on the internet, and >>>>> because u lack total free will, ur just compelled to respond 😂😂😂 >>>>> >>>> >>>> My primary reason for posting here was always >>>> to establish copyright priority I will keep >>> >>> You have more than enough redundancy over 20 years for that. >>> >> >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its > ^^ >> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >> would never stop running unless aborted then > ^^^^ > > Did you notice your own if / then here? > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > You already admitted that the "if" is satisfied. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 20:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met |
| Message-ID | <20251115120347.812@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135676 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 9:27 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >> ^^ >>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>> would never stop running unless aborted then >> ^^^^ >> >> Did you notice your own if / then here? >> > > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The whole point is that D simulated by H > >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated > >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > > > > You already admitted that the "if" is satisfied. No; H does not /correctly/ determine that D would never stop running. It /incorrectly/ does so, which means that the antecedent of the "if" is false. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 14:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met |
| Message-ID | <10fan3p$3no35$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135709 |
On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 9:27 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>> ^^ >>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>>> would never stop running unless aborted then >>> ^^^^ >>> >>> Did you notice your own if / then here? >>> >> >>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>> >>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>> >>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>> >> >> You already admitted that the "if" is satisfied. > > No; H does not /correctly/ determine that D would never > stop running. It /incorrectly/ does so, which means that > the antecedent of the "if" is false. > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > The above certainly does semantically entail that D simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met |
| Message-ID | <20251115133440.301@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135712 |
On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2025 2:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 9:27 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>> ^^ >>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then >>>> ^^^^ >>>> >>>> Did you notice your own if / then here? >>>> >>> >>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H >>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does. >>>> >>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. >>>> >>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, >>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement. >>>> >>> >>> You already admitted that the "if" is satisfied. >> >> No; H does not /correctly/ determine that D would never >> stop running. It /incorrectly/ does so, which means that >> the antecedent of the "if" is false. >> > > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The whole point is that D simulated by H > >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated > >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > > > > The above certainly does semantically entail > that D simulated by H would never stop running > unless aborted. "Stop running" only refers to the simulation, not to whether the D inside the simulation is halting. Thus "be aborted" and "stop running" mean the same thing. Thus all you are saying is this: "D simulated by H would never be aborted unless aborted". When H stops simulating, it returns a value. If that value is 0, D is terminating, otherwise D is nonterminating. D is also nonerminating if H doesn't stop simulating. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 16:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met |
| Message-ID | <10fatdf$3pfao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135729 |
On 11/15/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its >> own simulated "return" statement > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > When H stops running everything that it simulated is dead. The simulation was the only thing giving the static finite string of D life. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87bjl2kck4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #135517 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes: > Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? You never know. It will be easier now than when I tried to get people to stop a while back. Then, with Usenet more publicly visible, new repliers were always on hand to fill the gap. Of course that was ideal for PO as he could rehash twenty years of nonsense with the new guys while avoiding the traps he'd fallen into in the past. For what it's worth, I stopped some time ago. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 19:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash |
| Message-ID | <10fb8v4$3s47k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135758 |
On 11/15/2025 7:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>
>> Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month?
>
> You never know. It will be easier now than when I tried to get people
> to stop a while back. Then, with Usenet more publicly visible, new
> repliers were always on hand to fill the gap. Of course that was ideal
> for PO as he could rehash twenty years of nonsense with the new guys
> while avoiding the traps he'd fallen into in the past.
>
> For what it's worth, I stopped some time ago.
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Simulating termination analyzer HHH and input DD
have been a fully operational software system for
more than three years.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
When N statements of DD are simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming
language the simulated DD cannot reach its own
simulated "return" statement final halt state
for any value of N.
HHH report on the actual behavior that its
actual input actually specifies as measured
by DD simulated by HHH.
HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior
of its caller because HHH has no way of
knowing what function is calling it.
This means that when the halting problem
requires HHH to report on the behavior of
its caller: DD() that its is requiring
something outside the scope of computation.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 02:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash |
| Message-ID | <20251115184626.294@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135762 |
On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior > of its caller because HHH has no way of > knowing what function is calling it. > > This means that when the halting problem > requires HHH to report on the behavior of > its caller: DD() that its is requiring > something outside the scope of computation. That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 20:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash |
| Message-ID | <10fbef2$3t9aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135766 |
On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >> of its caller because HHH has no way of >> knowing what function is calling it. >> >> This means that when the halting problem >> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >> something outside the scope of computation. > > That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. > Yes and now if you could just translate that mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning with a sound basis. Not to denigrate you but I think that this would be totally out of your depth as it would be for most everyone. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 21:01 -0600 |
| Subject | People that have a very shallow understanding of these things |
| Message-ID | <10fber1$3tbul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135767 |
On 11/15/2025 8:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >>> of its caller because HHH has no way of >>> knowing what function is calling it. >>> >>> This means that when the halting problem >>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >>> something outside the scope of computation. >> >> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >> > > Yes and now if you could just translate that > mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning > with a sound basis. > > Not to denigrate you but I think that this > would be totally out of your depth as it > would be for most everyone. > > The information that HHH is required to report > on simply is not contained in its input. > > The information that HHH is required to report > on simply is not contained in its input. > > The information that HHH is required to report > on simply is not contained in its input. > People that have a very shallow understanding of these things would say that is what undecidable means. That the information that HHH is required to report on simply is not contained in its input is what makes halting undecidable. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 12:10 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things |
| Message-ID | <2f486798e04674bfecf57f0547be4bca0200233a.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #135768 |
On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 21:01 -0600, olcott wrote: > On 11/15/2025 8:55 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > > On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior > > > > of its caller because HHH has no way of > > > > knowing what function is calling it. > > > > > > > > This means that when the halting problem > > > > requires HHH to report on the behavior of > > > > its caller: DD() that its is requiring > > > > something outside the scope of computation. > > > > > > That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. > > > > > > > Yes and now if you could just translate that > > mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning > > with a sound basis. > > > > Not to denigrate you but I think that this > > would be totally out of your depth as it > > would be for most everyone. > > > > The information that HHH is required to report > > on simply is not contained in its input. > > > > The information that HHH is required to report > > on simply is not contained in its input. > > > > The information that HHH is required to report > > on simply is not contained in its input. > > > > People that have a very shallow understanding of these > things would say that is what undecidable means. It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if', and more seriously now, who don't understand what contradiction is, along with various foundamental knowledge and skill. > That the information that HHH is required to report > on simply is not contained in its input is what makes > halting undecidable. Who says the input of the halt decider has to contain anything for the decider to decide?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 22:41 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things |
| Message-ID | <10fbkla$3uhss$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135769 |
On 11/15/2025 10:10 PM, wij wrote: > On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 21:01 -0600, olcott wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 8:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of >>>>> knowing what function is calling it. >>>>> >>>>> This means that when the halting problem >>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >>>>> something outside the scope of computation. >>>> >>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >>>> >>> >>> Yes and now if you could just translate that >>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning >>> with a sound basis. >>> >>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this >>> would be totally out of your depth as it >>> would be for most everyone. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >> >> People that have a very shallow understanding of these >> things would say that is what undecidable means. > > It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if', It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that I do not understand logical if. Google [Olcott's Minimal Type Theory] > and more seriously now, > who don't understand what contradiction is, along with various foundamental > knowledge and skill. > >> That the information that HHH is required to report >> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes >> halting undecidable. > > Who says the input of the halt decider has to contain anything for the > decider to decide? > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-15 23:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things |
| Message-ID | <10fbmh8$3ur64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135768 |
On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote: > On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 21:01 -0600, olcott wrote: >> On 11/15/2025 8:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-16, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior >>>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of >>>>> knowing what function is calling it. >>>>> >>>>> This means that when the halting problem >>>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of >>>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring >>>>> something outside the scope of computation. >>>> >>>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. >>>> >>> >>> Yes and now if you could just translate that >>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning >>> with a sound basis. >>> >>> Not to denigrate you but I think that this >>> would be totally out of your depth as it >>> would be for most everyone. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >>> The information that HHH is required to report >>> on simply is not contained in its input. >>> >> >> People that have a very shallow understanding of these >> things would say that is what undecidable means. > > It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if', It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that I do not understand logical if. Google [Olcott's Minimal Type Theory] -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-16 19:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things |
| Message-ID | <10fda8l$bfbt$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135771 |
On 16/11/2025 05:13, olcott wrote: > On 11/15/2025 10:09 PM, wij wrote: >> It is you who don't even understand the logical 'if', > It it ridiculously stupid of you to say that > I do not understand logical if. To what does the phrase "logical if" refer? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web