Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Done with Olcott. |
| Date | 2021-05-26 13:18 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <s8mae2$h94$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <20210525093603.853@kylheku.com> <i4idnV6Xqa9-xTD9nZ2dnUU78UvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87eedukyve.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QaednaIAQPo46DP9nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
On 5/26/2021 9:21 AM, 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... >> > > You have already been so biased against my position and laser focused on > rebuttal that you never understand what I am actually saying because you > are simply not paying enough attention. BARF! > > 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 >
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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