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 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v408aa$29nm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106586 |
On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>> possible?
>>>
>>
>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>
>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>> know
>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>> hopeless.
>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they
>>> are
>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>
>>
>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>
>
> Nope, most of your words are just wrong.
That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
proof that my most important words are correct.
On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>
>
> I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>
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 20:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409jf$39ri6$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106588 |
On 6/7/24 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>> possible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>
>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>>> know
>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>> hopeless.
>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>> they are
>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong.
>
> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
> proof that my most important words are correct.
>
> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>
> >> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
> >> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
> >> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
> >
> >
> > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
> >
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
Why?
> _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.
>
Then I guess you are just admitting that your HH is NOT a Halt decider
as they are REQUIRED to answer about the direct execution of the machine
described by their input, in this case DD(DD).
That sort of kills your whole proof, if yoy begin with an admission that
you decider just isn't meeting the requirements of a halt decider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409st$29u1i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106596 |
On 6/7/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>> possible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>> I know
>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>> they are
>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong.
>>
>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>
>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> >>
>> >> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>> >> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>> >> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>> >
>> >
>> > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>> >
>>
>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>
>
> Why?
>
Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
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 21:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ahk$39ri5$29@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106600 |
On 6/7/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>>> I know
>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong.
>>>
>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>
>>> On 6/5/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 6/5/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>> >> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>>> >> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I never said it could, you just are stuck in a bad question.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
>
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
>
> Because saying that I am wrong and refusing to
> look at the proof that I am correct <is> defamation.
I said you were wrong about proving that DD was not Halting.
I have said nothing about the truth of you claim using your
non-canonical definniton of correct simulation.
To say otherwise is just a LIE.
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
Why should I care?
>
> _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.
>
So you are just admitting that you definition of correct simulation
doesn't give you the information needed to determine halting correctly,
since that IS based on the direct exectution of the machine being asked
about via its representation.
SO, you are just proving yourself to be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v408qi$29nm5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106586 |
On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>> possible?
>>>
>>
>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>
>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>> know
>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>> hopeless.
>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they
>>> are
>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>
>>
>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>
>
> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to talk
> about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>
That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
proof that my most important words are correct.
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.
>
The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
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 20:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409nm$39ri6$22@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106591 |
On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>> possible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>
>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I
>>>>> know
>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>> hopeless.
>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>> they are
>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>
>
> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
> proof that my most important words are correct.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>
WHAT PROOF?
You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
and who cares?
>
> _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.
>
Thus proving that you have never been working on a Halt Decider, as a
Halt Decider MUST report on the behavior of the direct execution of the
machine represented by its input.
All you are doing is proving that you are totally ignorant of the topic
you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409vo$29u1i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106598 |
On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>> possible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>> I know
>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>> they are
>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>
>>
>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>
>> 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.
>> >
>>
>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>
>
> WHAT PROOF?
>
> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>
>
>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>
>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
> and who cares?
>
>
OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
--
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 21:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40atr$39ri6$24@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106601 |
On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that
>>>>>>> I know
>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>
>>>
>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>
>>
>> WHAT PROOF?
>>
>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>
>>
>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>
>> and who cares?
>>
>>
>
> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>
To tell him what?
That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40bvi$29u1i$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106604 |
On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is
>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>
>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>> and who cares?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>
>
> To tell him what?
>
> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
Salvation
We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
Can salvation be lost?
Some say yes and some say no.
--
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 21:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ctd$3bc43$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106606 |
On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need
>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood,
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to
>>>>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> and who cares?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>
>>
>> To tell him what?
>>
>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>
> Salvation
> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>
> Can salvation be lost?
> Some say yes and some say no.
>
Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a
true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40d8k$2acud$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106608 |
On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them
>>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure
>>>>>>>>>>>> on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To tell him what?
>>>
>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>
>> Salvation
>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>
>> Can salvation be lost?
>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>
>
> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>
> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a
> true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
>
>
My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
more to my behavior than that.
--
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 22:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ejp$3bc43$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106610 |
On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>
>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>
>>> Salvation
>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>
>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>
>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into
>> a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
>>
>>
>
> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
What INCORRECTLY?
Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are
talking about.
You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved yourself
on it.
> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
> more to my behavior than that.
>
You also twist the words of people.
You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show you
don't actually understand.
You have claimed to be like God in nature.
Need I go on?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40g1j$2eh7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106612 |
On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know
>>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try
>>>>>>>>> to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>>
>>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>>
>>>> Salvation
>>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and
>>>> they
>>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>>
>>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>>
>>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got
>>> into a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important
>>> to you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
>
> What INCORRECTLY?
>
> Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are
> talking about.
>
> You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved yourself
> on it.
>
>
>> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
>> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
>> more to my behavior than that.
>>
>
> You also twist the words of people.
>
> You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show you
> don't actually understand.
>
I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words
that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light.
That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things
are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect.
To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single
detail of my whole view of these things and find an error.
That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it
does not count as rebuttal.
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.
>
Maybe now that we have worked together to make
my words more precise we can finally get closure.
It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis
that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough,
less than 24 months is POD24.
--
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 22:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40gln$3bc43$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106614 |
On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> them possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
>>>>>>>>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopeless.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
>>>>>>>>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you
>>>>>>>>>> try to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
>>>>>>>>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
>>>>>>>>> proof that my most important words are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
>>>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
>>>>>>>>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PROOF?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
>>>>>>>>> look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
>>>>>>>>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and who cares?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To tell him what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?
>>>>>
>>>>> Salvation
>>>>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>>>>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>>>>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and
>>>>> they
>>>>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can salvation be lost?
>>>>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>>>>
>>>> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got
>>>> into a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely
>>>> important to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
>>
>> What INCORRECTLY?
>>
>> Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are
>> talking about.
>>
>> You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved
>> yourself on it.
>>
>>
>>> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
>>> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
>>> more to my behavior than that.
>>>
>>
>> You also twist the words of people.
>>
>> You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show
>> you don't actually understand.
>>
>
> I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words
> that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light.
Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you
don't actually understand the meaning.
>
> That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things
> are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect.
But you haven't actually PROVEN anything.
You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true.
>
> To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single
> detail of my whole view of these things and find an error.
No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you
need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable to
do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is.
When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true,
building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system.
To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that proof
that isn't valie.
>
> That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it
> does not count as rebuttal.
Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under.
Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't
proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Maybe now that we have worked together to make
> my words more precise we can finally get closure.
So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth
looking at.
Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are
trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path
before you go down it.
Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your claim,
that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make it
reasonable to look at.
Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going
to work.
>
> It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis
> that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough,
> less than 24 months is POD24.
>
So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40h53$2elkd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106618 |
On 6/7/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work? >>> >>> What INCORRECTLY? >>> >>> Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are >>> talking about. >>> >>> You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved >>> yourself on it. >>> >>> >>>> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that >>>> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much >>>> more to my behavior than that. >>>> >>> >>> You also twist the words of people. >>> >>> You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show >>> you don't actually understand. >>> >> >> I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words >> that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light. > > Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you > don't actually understand the meaning. > Mostly it is people that dogmatically assert that my notion of DD correctly simulated by HH is not consistent with what they memorized. They either lack sufficient technical skill to understand my correction of their incorrect assumption or want to call me wrong without bothering to look at my proof to the contrary. >> >> That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things >> are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect. > > But you haven't actually PROVEN anything. > > You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true. > >> >> To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single >> detail of my whole view of these things and find an error. > > No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you > need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable to > do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is. > > When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true, > building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system. > > To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that proof > that isn't valie. > >> >> That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it >> does not count as rebuttal. > > Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under. > > Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't > proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation. > >> >> 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. >> > >> >> Maybe now that we have worked together to make >> my words more precise we can finally get closure. > > So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth > looking at. > > Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are > trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path > before you go down it. > > Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your claim, > that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make it > reasonable to look at. > > Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going > to work. > >> >> It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis >> that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough, >> less than 24 months is POD24. >> > > So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof. > What I really need it to get the liars to repent. -- 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 23:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40i49$3bc44$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106620 |
On 6/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work? >>>> >>>> What INCORRECTLY? >>>> >>>> Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are >>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved >>>> yourself on it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that >>>>> denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much >>>>> more to my behavior than that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You also twist the words of people. >>>> >>>> You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show >>>> you don't actually understand. >>>> >>> >>> I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words >>> that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light. >> >> Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you >> don't actually understand the meaning. >> > > Mostly it is people that dogmatically assert that my notion of > DD correctly simulated by HH is not consistent with what they > memorized. Because sometimes DOGMA is what is the rules. Your concept of HH being able to answer based on its own definition of correct simulation just make is NOT A HALT DECIDER, because its mapping function is not that of Halting. Your error is that you speak out of rote words you picked up while not learning anything, and thus don't actually make sense. > > They either lack sufficient technical skill to understand my > correction of their incorrect assumption or want to call me > wrong without bothering to look at my proof to the contrary. Nope, YOU don't have sufficient technical skill to understand the system you are trying to talk about. You are not the "God" of compuation theory, and thus can not change the rules of it. Halting has a defintion, and you can not change it and still be in Computation Theory, If you try, you are cast out of the land, and nothing you do will have any ability to affect that actual system. All you have proven is that you are not working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory, and likely aren't even in the bounds of Computation Theory at all. This is why you get the rejections, you have gotten yourself kicked out of the garden for your bad behavior. If you start with the admission of what you are wanting to try to look at being different, then perhaps you can come up with something that might be of interest, but of course, any proof about olcott-halting wouldn't affect any of the standard proofs of things you don't like that are based on the canonical definitions of Halting, so we still have incompleteness, and the inability to have a universal Truth Predicate. > >>> >>> That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things >>> are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect. >> >> But you haven't actually PROVEN anything. >> >> You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true. >> >>> >>> To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single >>> detail of my whole view of these things and find an error. >> >> No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you >> need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable >> to do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is. >> >> When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true, >> building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system. >> >> To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that >> proof that isn't valie. >> >>> >>> That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it >>> does not count as rebuttal. >> >> Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under. >> >> Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't >> proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> > >>> >>> Maybe now that we have worked together to make >>> my words more precise we can finally get closure. >> >> So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth >> looking at. >> >> Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are >> trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path >> before you go down it. >> >> Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your >> claim, that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make >> it reasonable to look at. >> >> Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going >> to work. >> >>> >>> It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis >>> that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough, >>> less than 24 months is POD24. >>> >> >> So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof. >> > > What I really need it to get the liars to repent. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 10:31 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v411c9$2h53q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106570 |
On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >> > > The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability > > That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because > it is inherently true. > > You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both empirical and analitical truth? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41kqa$3cg3t$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106638 |
On 6/8/24 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>> >> >> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >> >> That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because >> it is inherently true. >> >> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. > > The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right > way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways > right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both > empirical and analitical truth? > This is actual one of the telling parts of his arguement. The analytical / empirical distinction is part of the philosophy of logic, where the base definitions of what is truth get fuzzier. In Formal Systems, technically ALL truth is Analytic (except for the axioms of the system). Sometimes in formal system will talk about things being empirical-like if we are asking if there exists or doesn't exist an element with a property, and we determine that by examining each element to find one, verse working with logic on the property itself. Thus the list of prime numbers would be sort of an empirical truth. That he focuses so much on this shows that he doesn't have a formal logic background, but a philosophical background (and not that good of one at that) which shows in his other problems, like writing proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 08:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41mva$2kanc$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106652 |
On 6/8/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/8/24 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>>> >>> >>> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >>> >>> That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because >>> it is inherently true. >>> >>> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. >> >> The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right >> way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways >> right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both >> empirical and analitical truth? >> > > This is actual one of the telling parts of his arguement. > > The analytical / empirical distinction is part of the philosophy of > logic, where the base definitions of what is truth get fuzzier. > > In Formal Systems, technically ALL truth is Analytic (except for the > axioms of the system). _DDD() [00001de2] 55 push ebp [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08 [00001df5] 5d pop ebp [00001df6] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6] We can see by running the code or bench checking that the above code specifies that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction. > Sometimes in formal system will talk about things > being empirical-like if we are asking if there exists or doesn't exist > an element with a property, and we determine that by examining each > element to find one, verse working with logic on the property itself. > > Thus the list of prime numbers would be sort of an empirical truth. > > That he focuses so much on this shows that he doesn't have a formal > logic background, but a philosophical background (and not that good of > one at that) which shows in his other problems, like writing proofs. -- 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 09:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41ntr$3cg3t$17@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106672 |
On 6/8/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/8/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/8/24 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false >>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be >>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>>>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >>>> >>>> That "cats" <are> "animals" is unfalsifiable because >>>> it is inherently true. >>>> >>>> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. >>> >>> The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right >>> way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways >>> right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both >>> empirical and analitical truth? >>> >> >> This is actual one of the telling parts of his arguement. >> >> The analytical / empirical distinction is part of the philosophy of >> logic, where the base definitions of what is truth get fuzzier. >> >> In Formal Systems, technically ALL truth is Analytic (except for the >> axioms of the system). > > _DDD() > [00001de2] 55 push ebp > [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD > [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD > [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH > [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00001df5] 5d pop ebp > [00001df6] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6] > > We can see by running the code or bench checking that > the above code specifies Except that we can not "run" that code, as it isn't a complete program. You can only run PROGRAMS, not fragments. > > that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86 emulator H > can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction. Not at all, maybe you are making your mistake by changing things too many times, but UTM H(DDD,DDD) can easily reach that final state if HH is the decider that it is supposed to be, showing that decider HH to be wrong. If HH isn't supposed to be the decider of the Linz proof, then who cares, you are just admitting to working on a straw man. The only program we are interested in, if we are trying to talk about the Linz or Sipser proofs, is the program based on the exact decider it is supposed to be refuting. Any other program is uninteresting, and just a straw man. > >> Sometimes in formal system will talk about things being empirical-like >> if we are asking if there exists or doesn't exist an element with a >> property, and we determine that by examining each element to find one, >> verse working with logic on the property itself. >> >> Thus the list of prime numbers would be sort of an empirical truth. >> >> That he focuses so much on this shows that he doesn't have a formal >> logic background, but a philosophical background (and not that good of >> one at that) which shows in his other problems, like writing proofs. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web