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

Groups > comp.theory > #34252

Re: Done with Olcott.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/25/21 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, 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.
>>
>> 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 create my own language to connect the ideas together in my own mind.
> 
> The utterly eliminates the problem of boxing myself into any
> conventional misconceptions. Now that my breakthrough is complete I need
> to learn how to translate my insights into the closest conventional
> terminology.
> 
> Now that Kaz forced me to finally look at diagonalization in the halting
> problem I find that it is quite simple
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
> 
> And thus nothing like the horrifically convoluted mess of the diagonal
> lemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
> 

YOUR 'Breakthrough' is that by ignoring the actual definitions of a
problem you can create a proof so full of double speak that YOU have
gas-lighted yourself to the point that you don't understand how bad it is.

I Challenge you to try to submit this to any REAL peer review journal,
and at best you might make the April Fools copy of the journal. Maybe
you could get it into JIR. It does sort of match their theme.

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