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

Groups > comp.theory > #36494

Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ]

Subject Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ]
Newsgroups comp.theory
References (12 earlier) <FpKdnbmEF-InjXP9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <l8uHI.2205$gE.553@fx21.iad> <0_CdnfQkOa7aYXP9nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YrOHI.10651$7H7.311@fx42.iad> <zeadnUMuW9cw0239nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <eAtII.4481$B3Uf.2646@fx17.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2021-07-16 23:07 -0600

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/15/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2021 11:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/14/21 9:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2021 11:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/21 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2021 1:15 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> When Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem is translated into HOL that
>>>>>>> has its own provability predicate thus no need for the purely
>>>>>>> extraneous complexity of Gödel numbers then it is very obvious that
>>>>>>> it is modeled after the liar paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's almost certainly of no interest to you, but a proof of the
>>>>>> incompleteness of second order predicate calculus may be found in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans Hermes, (trans Herman & Plassmann) /Enumerability, decidability,
>>>>>> computability/, 2nd edition, Springer, 1964.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not use Gödel numbering.  Nor is it "is modeled after the
>>>>>> liar
>>>>>> paradox."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not initially add that it must also have its own provability
>>>>> predicate like the Tarski undefinability theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even when we get these things boiled down to their simplest possible
>>>>> essence no academicians can begin to understand what is really
>>>>> going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> They still don't understand that the actual liar paradox is simply
>>>>> not a
>>>>> truth bearer because it is self contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> They all seem to think that it is some puzzle that is far too
>>>>> difficult
>>>>> to ever figure out. The Tarski undefinability theory has the liar
>>>>> paradox as its only basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU do not understand the TRUE meaning of a Truth Bearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A "Truth bearer" is an expression of language capable of having a
>>> Boolean property.
>>
>> Right, and the answer to the Halting Problem, "Does P(I) come to a
>> Halting state in a finite number of steps?" always, yes always. has a
>> Yes or No anser.
> 
> Yes continue to dishonestly change the question by ignoring the
> mandatory context of the question. Does being a liar make you feel good?

You are the one that is ignoring the context.

The answer to thge Halting Property of a Computation is INDEPENDENT of
the decider being asked to decide it. PERIOD.

Your POOP conflates the operation of the decider with the operation of
the computation being asked about,
> 
> What Boolean value can H return to an input that does the opposite of
> whatever H decides making sure to contradict the halt status that H
> returns such that H returns the correct Boolean value halt status to P?

WRONG. That question persupposes that a universally accurate halt
decider exists.

The roughly equivalent question would be: What Boolean value should have
the decider H returned to make an accurate halting determination for its
input.

THAT DOES have an answer, since to even ask it, we have to have the P,
so we have to have an H, and the answer will be the opposite of whatever
that H actually does return.

> 
>>>
>>> In all cases where it is impossible to resolve an expression of language
>>> to a Boolean value this expression is not a truth bearer.
>>
>> And the Halting Problem never doesn't have an answer.
> 
> Only because you dishonestly remove the context of the question.

As I said, YOU have the wrong context. The answer to the Halting Problem
of P(I) always has a definite answer, and thus the Halting Problem for
the machine H^(H^) has a definite answer, and for H to have been RIGHT,
it need to match that answer. The problem is that the right answer will
never be the answer that H actually gave.

There is NO logical contradiction in this. H is just WRONG

> 
> I claim there are no grocery stores that are bigger than the universe
> and your reply is that I am wrong Walmart is a big store.


STRAWMAN, That isn't the question. The Halting Problem ALWAYS have a
right answer for ANY Turing Machine.


>>>
>>> The key case of this is the liar Paradox. Something must be wrong with
>>> the world if no academician has figured out that self-contradictory
>>> sentences are not truth bearers in more than 2000 years.
>>
>> Right, you get the Liar paradox when you assume that H exists and ask
>> what it should produce in this case, the lack of answer shows that H
>> doesn't exist, not that the Halting Problem has a problem.
>>
> 
> When-so-ever any decision problem TM/input pair has no correct Boolean
> value this is not an undecidable instance where the TM cannot decide
> which Boolean value is correct. It is an incorrect instance where both
> Boolean values are the wrong answer.

AND H^(H^) HAS a deefinite answer for any give H (and you can't actually
ask the question until you do). It is just the fact that H will ALWAYS
be wrong about H^, that is NOT a contradiction. That is NOT a case of
the question not having a proper anwer, because the question is NOT what
should H return to be right, it is what does H^(H^) do, which depends on
H as it is built on it as allowed by Turing Theory.

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

Thread

Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:00 +0100
  Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 12:08 -0500
    Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 18:12 +0100
      Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:06 -0500
        Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:23 +0100
          Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:32 -0500
            Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:38 +0100
              Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 13:45 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 19:59 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:09 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:14 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 14:32 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 20:35 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 14:08 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:12 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:39 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:46 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 22:52 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:58 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 23:00 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 17:08 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory (Ben, Kaz or Mike please talk to Flibble) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 15:12 -0700
        Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 20:30 +0100
          Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 16:04 -0500
            Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:47 +0100
              Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 18:30 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 02:56 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:18 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 03:34 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 19:45 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:34 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:55 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 21:25 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:32 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:39 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-11 10:23 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-11 10:43 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:19 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 10:09 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 18:20 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 12:45 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 19:18 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:09 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble agrees that I am correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:44 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 14:35 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 13:36 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 08:56 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:04 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 10:27 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:18 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:01 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:41 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 09:12 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-20 17:16 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:41 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:55 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:40 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-21 16:49 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:00 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-22 08:44 -0500
          Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0600
            Re: Olcott's theory Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-11 13:22 +0100
        Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 14:13 +0100
          Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 06:19 -0700
            Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
              Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-12 17:33 +0200
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:27 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:36 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:15 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:16 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:56 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 10:01 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 22:03 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 10:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:07 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 22:45 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 09:56 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-14 21:48 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-15 03:43 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-15 07:54 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:35 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-16 23:09 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] ( isomorphic thus correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:24 -0500
            Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 13:27 -0600
              Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 21:08 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-12 21:24 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 16:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-12 22:59 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:23 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-12 21:32 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 23:31 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 03:51 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:00 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:38 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:01 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:35 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 09:13 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 15:24 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 16:22 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 18:48 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 17:06 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:17 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] (Fixing Tarski's nonsense ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 19:29 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:14 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:40 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 18:58 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:08 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 19:52 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 22:39 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:00 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 23:17 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble quote agrees] ( incorrect questions ) wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:41 -0700
                Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-13 07:23 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-13 00:00 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-12 23:40 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 18:23 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-12 22:57 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:21 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-13 11:49 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:49 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:45 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 21:10 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:03 -0500
                Re: Olcott's theory Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-12 16:52 -0600
                Re: Olcott's theory Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-13 00:37 +0100
                Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:02 -0500
              Re: Olcott's theory olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:00 -0500
          Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:25 -0500
  Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 23:04 -0700
    Re: Olcott's theory [unknown to be undecidable] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:21 -0500
    Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 07:52 -0700
      Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:42 -0700
        Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 11:52 -0700
          Re: Olcott's theory wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 16:52 -0700
            Re: Olcott's theory Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 04:39 -0700
  Re: Olcott's theory [ "I agree with Olcott" ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 11:04 -0500
  Re: Olcott's theory Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-11 22:14 -0600
    Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 09:10 -0500
      Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:09 -0700
        Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:14 -0700
          Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:23 -0500
            Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 07:24 -0700
              Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:59 -0500
        Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 22:07 -0500
          Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 20:17 -0700
            Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:45 -0500
      Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands this ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-12 16:40 -0700
  Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 14:33 -0500
    Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-19 20:40 +0100
      Re: Olcott's theory [ Flibble understands pathological self reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
  Re: Olcott's theory "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 13:25 -0700

csiph-web