Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away
 with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:15:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3d35cc101fad5c4c509cc2a09461bd74d1124cfd@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7m0af$n73h$2@dont-email.me>
 <v7nlun$1412g$4@dont-email.me> <v7of1s$17h8r$5@dont-email.me>
 <v7opqs$44m$1@news.muc.de> <v7orpn$1aat4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:15:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="142535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7orpn$1aat4$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7557
Lines: 170

On 7/23/24 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>
>>>>>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  
>>>>>> All but
>>>>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>
>>>>>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's 
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>>>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract 
>>>>>> reasoning,
>>>>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>>>>>> learning at all.
>>
>>>>>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless 
>>>>>> repetition?
>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
>>>>> mistake.
>>
>>>> What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
>>>> Fred. Zwarts had said?
>>
>>
>>> In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
>>> me that are listed above?
>>
>> What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"?  In
>> most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong, 
> 
> *No as many as one person ever actually showed that*
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
> 
> We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design 
> requirement that HHH must itself halt.

and (a) is wrong because it says that DDD doesn't halt when it does.

Your error is assume that the problem is in fact computable.

Since every HHH gets a DIFFERENT DDD to answer, the fact that the DDD 
given to the HHH that doesn't aborts needs to be aborfed doesn't mean 
that the DDD given to the HHH that does abort needs to be aborted too.

> 
> For example I have proved that my point is correct recently
> to you several times and you make sure to not even look at
> it on the basis that you baselessly assume that I did not
> change my words to make them more clear.
> 

No, you have LIED about such a proof, and you fail to answer the errors 
pointed out, because you KNOW you are wrong but refuse to look at the 
errors.

You are just proving that you are mentally incompetent, and just an 
ignorant pathological lying idiot that just recklessly disregards the 
truth becuase you just can't understand it.

If you think otherwise, WRITE YOU PAPER AND SUBMIT IT.

AND GET THE REJECTION THAT WILL SHUT YOU DOWN as you get laughed out of 
town.

> There are more key details that I did not provide so
> that you do not get overwhelmed and ignore everything
> that I say.
> 
>> and you
>> simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact.  You
>> repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
>> fashion, either.
>>
> 
> Whenever any rebuttal is based on a provably false assumption
> I stop reading it.

As you do for any rebuttal that says something that you disagree with, 
even if it is correct.

Failure to point out the error is just an admittion that you have been 
lying and have no grounds for you claims. The biggest part of your 
problem is you don't know the theory you are talking about, so can't 
actually quote and accepted axioms to make a real argument.

> 
>> You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of
>> times.  You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed
>> out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry.  You are
>> arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
>> supporting evidence.  You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical
>> logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.
>>
> 
> Mike Terry is the most competent and accurate reviewer
> yet even he makes sure to simply ignore key points that
> I make and leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong
> without even carefully seeing what I am actually saying.
> 
> He only does this on one key issue, every other aspect
> of his review seems to be accurate.
> 
> Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>  >
>  > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
>  > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
> 
> Mike and I could never go to closure on the details of how
> this can be implemented because he begins this discussion
> with the certainty that I am wrong about this issue thus
> will not discuss it. Other than that Mike's reviews seem
> to be accurate.
> 
> I implementing the above with a way for the simulated
> instances to pass their execution trace up to the master
> simulator and Mike persistently believed that this was the
> master simulator passing information down to the slaves.
> 
> Every rebuttal of my work has been specifically counter-factual.
> 
>> In short, trying to debate technical matters with you is a total waste of
>> time, as many people have found out.  Most of them have given up and gone
>> away.
>>
>> I see nothing wrong in what you call the "ad hominem attacks" against
>> you.  They are true, and relevant to the rest of the discussion here.
>>
> 
> When an ad hominem attack is your only basis then you have
> less than no basis at all.
> 
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>