Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:08:11 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 01:08:11 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4881 Lines: 86 On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is >>>>>>>>> false >>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need >>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>>>>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them >>>>>> possible? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are >>>>> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point. >>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement. >>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that >>>>>>> I know >>>>>>> that my words can possibly be understood. Without this >>>>>>> publication is >>>>>>> hopeless. >>>>>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, >>>>>> they are >>>>>> wrong. You could just post all of them. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious >>>>> belief of the nature of correct simulation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to >>>> talk about the actual theorems you are talking about). >>>> >>> >>> That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when >>> taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the >>> proof that my most important words are correct. >>> >>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>  > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>  >> >>>  >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK >>>  >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT >>>  >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT >>>  > >>>  > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you >>>  > are correct, because I am not willing to put >>>  > that effort into your worthless claim. >>>  > >>> >>> The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of >>> a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem >>> proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete. >>> >> >> WHAT PROOF? >> >> You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement. >> >> >>> That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not >>> look at the proof that they are correct actionable. >>> What would your pastor think about you telling these lies? >>> >>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >> >> and who cares? >> >> > > OK then I will try and contact your pastor. > To tell him what? That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?