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

Groups > comp.theory > #34288

Re: Done with Olcott.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/26/2021 10:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
> 
> Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun 
> stops, stop!".  I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your 
> description but that's ok.  I quite like doing sudoku and similar 
> puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those 
> achieve anything useful at the end!
> 
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
> 
> I've wondered this too.  Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be 
> actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks 
> definitely wouldn't last long.  In PO's case, he is generally polite, 
> just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. I 
> don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory 
> Christmas drink! :)
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 

The proof that people are simply not understanding what I am saying is 
that nothing that I have said has had any correct rebuttal, except that 
I have used technical terms in ways that are inconsistent with their 
conventional usage.

The notion of transforming an input having the pathological 
self-reference error (PSRE) into an equivalent input not having (PSRE) 
that acts as a proxy halt deciding basis for the original input has not 
yet been evaluated. This notion is the key to understanding that the 
essence of my proof has been right all along.

Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next 
step is to refute this proof directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was 
the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect 
reference of the diagonal lemma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

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

Thread

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

csiph-web