Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 20:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:28 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:55 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 23:15 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 07:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 07:30 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:00 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 22:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 21:43 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:44 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 00:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 12:32 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 21:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 08:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:29 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0500
Re: Last communication with Richard Rich Yard Daemon <news3@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 +0200
Re: Last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:12 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 12:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-07 17:57 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:13 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:00 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 17:50 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:02 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:24 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:41 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 02:57 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 21:22 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:01 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:34 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 10:34 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:32 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:00 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:18 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 03:43 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 12:18 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:20 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 14:41 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:16 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 15:38 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:19 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:25 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:36 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:59 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 11:09 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:44 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:05 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 19:57 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 20:16 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:03 -0500
Re: olcott is a moron immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-08 00:14 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:17 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 18:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 22:22 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:43 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:37 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 23:21 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:32 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:26 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:42 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 23:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:31 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:39 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:24 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:20 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:35 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-07 23:06 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 17:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-08 00:15 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:58 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 12:33 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-09 15:16 +0100
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:21 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 15:11 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:17 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:36 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 00:57 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:08 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:27 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ornott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 18:48 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 11:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact prescott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 20:03 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:02 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3var0$1o9em$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106503 |
On 7/06/24 17:52, olcott wrote: > The proof that you have lied about this is your above admission > that you have always ignored the following proof that I am correct > by using the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal. > > <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> I debunked this a few messages ago. You ignored it because you are an idiot who ignores everything that proves he's wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 12:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vcfk$39ri6$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106503 |
On 6/7/24 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you are correct, because
>>>>>> I am not willing to put that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I am no longer willing to talk to you.
>>>>> It is not a worthless claim it is the validation of the
>>>>> essence of my life's work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the essence of your life's work is that you came up with a way to
>>>> not-prove the thing you were trying to prove
>>>
>>> No you are just a Liar
>>
>> Then try to show it.
>>
>
> The proof that you have lied about this is your above admission
> that you have always ignored the following proof that I am correct
> by using the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
>
> <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>
And for this, "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that accurated
reflects that actual behavior of the dirrectly executed machine, which
means one that doesn't just stop before reaching the end.
Thus, your H doesn't do a correct simulation, or correctly predicts what
ANY correct simulation of the input does, so, can not in the second
clause use anything from the first, since it wasn't established.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
Why? Because you are just tring to redefine the meaning of a core term.
Since HH DOESN'T correctly simulate by the meaning you just last
mentioned for it, your question is just invalid.
And shows that you are just being deceptive.
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
And anyone claiming your definition of correct simulation can not use
Professors Sipser's comments, as they use a different one,
So, you are admitting to breaking your own rules by LYING about what
someone said.
You are just admitting that NOTHING you have been talking about applied
to the Halting Problem, but only to your POOP, and no one cares about
your POOP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #106503 |
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a few
days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N instructions"
simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
That now seems to have changed.
[ .... ]
> --
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 13:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106521 |
On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> _DD()
>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a few
> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N instructions"
> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>
> That now seems to have changed.
>
Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
improve my words on the basis of reviews.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 14:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106523 |
On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> _DD()
>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>
>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>
>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a few
>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N instructions"
>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>>
>> That now seems to have changed.
>>
>
> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, but just a POOP
decider, as a Halt Decider MUST report on the behavior of the directly
executed DD(DD), and thus you are admitting that your whole logic system
is disconnected from the definitions of Halting in Computation Theory.
Thank you for making that clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 13:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106525 |
On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>
>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>
>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a
>>> few
>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
>>> instructions"
>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>>>
>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>
>>
>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>
>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>
>> _DD()
>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp
>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx
>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>
>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>
>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>
>
> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
More dishonest deflection.
The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
executed DD(DD).
--
Copyright 2024 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 | 2024-06-08 02:57 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #106530 |
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > > [ Followup-To: set ]
> > > >
> > > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ .... ]
> > > >
> > > > > _DD()
> > > > > [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> > > > > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > > > > [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> > > > > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > > > > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> > > > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > > > > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> > > > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > > >
> > > > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > > >
> > > > That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? Less than a
> > > > few
> > > > days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
> > > > instructions"
> > > > simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N). It seems that
> > > > the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
> > > >
> > > > That now seems to have changed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
> > > improve my words on the basis of reviews.
> > >
> > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> > > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
> > >
> > > _DD()
> > > [00001e12] 55 push ebp
> > > [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > > [00001e15] 51 push ecx
> > > [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > > [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
> > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > > [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > >
> > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > >
> > > Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> > > of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> > > of the above definition of correct simulation.
> > >
> >
> > And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>
> More dishonest deflection.
> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
> executed DD(DD).
>
The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
Surrender to my GUR, son.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vml4$1o9el$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106532 |
On 7/06/24 20:57, wij wrote: > The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that: > IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return. > ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return. > ELSE HP is undecidable > > You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies. > > Surrender to my GUR, son. > He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v3vri0$3ao52$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106533 |
Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: > He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. The reason being that Richard responds at the same level -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 17:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v4016s$287qb$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106548 |
On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. > The reason being that Richard responds at the same level > You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be corrected by feedback. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 10:01 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v40vk6$2grjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106566 |
On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >> > > You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be > corrected by feedback. You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but you can always present your own for comparison. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 08:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41l1v$2jqdk$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106637 |
On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>> >> >> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >> corrected by feedback. > > You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but > you can always present your own for comparison. > I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 09:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41mvh$3cg3t$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106662 |
On 6/8/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>> >>> >>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>> corrected by feedback. >> >> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >> you can always present your own for comparison. >> > > I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) > they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. > But you can onlly correct other people's false assumptions if they have one, and it isn't YOU with the false assumption. Your problem is you try to state as undeniable truths things that are just not true, because you never learned the basics of what you talk about. That is just a reckless disregard for the truth, and your refusal to even try to learn what you are talking about turned you into the ignorant pathological lying idiot that you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 08:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41nn1$2kanc$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106673 |
On 6/8/2024 8:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/8/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>> >>>> >>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>> corrected by feedback. >>> >>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>> >> >> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. >> > > But you can onlly correct other people's false assumptions if they have > one, and it isn't YOU with the false assumption. > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you > are correct, because I am not willing to put > that effort into your worthless claim. > That makes any statement that you make about the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH defamation. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 10:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v41q5v$3cg3s$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106680 |
On 6/8/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/8/2024 8:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/8/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>>> corrected by feedback. >>>> >>>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>>> >>> >>> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >>> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. >>> >> >> But you can onlly correct other people's false assumptions if they >> have one, and it isn't YOU with the false assumption. >> > > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: > >> > >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK > >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT > >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT > > > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you > > are correct, because I am not willing to put > > that effort into your worthless claim. > > > > That makes any statement that you make about the > behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH defamation. > No, things that are easily seen about that can be talked about. What I refuse to do is try to look at the exhaustive list of possible deciders to say that none of them does what you say. Since I don't every say that your statement is correct or incorrect, there is nothing defamitory about my statements that it doesn't apply, becasue that doesn't require the looking into that infinite set of machines. You are just showing your ignorance of how logic works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 10:34 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v43lut$3a8bu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106662 |
On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>> >>> >>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>> corrected by feedback. >> >> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >> you can always present your own for comparison. >> > > I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) > they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they remain uncorrected. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 07:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v448gs$3fscf$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106757 |
On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>> >>>> >>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>> corrected by feedback. >>> >>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>> >> >> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. > > Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they > remain uncorrected. > So one majickly cures one's own ignorance? If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 18:32 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44huq$3jn38$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106768 |
On 2024-06-09 12:51:40 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>>> corrected by feedback. >>>> >>>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>>> >>> >>> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >>> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. >> >> Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they >> remain uncorrected. > > So one majickly cures one's own ignorance? Rarely that way. > If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong. Your disagreement does not prevent one from keeping that assumption. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 11:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v44kli$3jnc8$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106786 |
On 6/9/2024 10:32 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-09 12:51:40 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>>>> corrected by feedback. >>>>> >>>>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>>>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >>>> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. >>> >>> Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they >>> remain uncorrected. >> >> So one majickly cures one's own ignorance? > > Rarely that way. > >> If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong. > > Your disagreement does not prevent one from keeping that assumption. > The verified facts prevent anyone from correctly maintaining false assumptions. -- Copyright 2024 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 10:00 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard |
| Message-ID | <v4689s$8bel$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106795 |
On 2024-06-09 16:18:58 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/9/2024 10:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-09 12:51:40 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis: >>>>>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason. >>>>>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be >>>>>>> corrected by feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but >>>>>> you can always present your own for comparison. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if) >>>>> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am. >>>> >>>> Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they >>>> remain uncorrected. >>> >>> So one majickly cures one's own ignorance? >> >> Rarely that way. >> >>> If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong. >> >> Your disagreement does not prevent one from keeping that assumption. >> > > The verified facts prevent anyone from correctly > maintaining false assumptions. No, they don't, if one assumes that the verification was incorrect. Besides, you didn't say they maintain their false assumtions "correctly". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web