Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott has proved that the biggest number is 5.
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:54:52 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <utb5qt$lekr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utai5u$e1jp$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:54:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a78f588840fadcc0c8b63bd5cb45ec84";
	logging-data="703131"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/iv7GP5fTgFoDJNh3+MQNiN5HAiAxQcbc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KHcmefDU7u69QQKqaGTEl6R+dJE=
In-Reply-To: <utai5u$e1jp$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2314

On 3/18/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:
> Other people may say that 6 is bigger than 5, but 6 is designed to 
> contradict that 5 is the biggest number so this is incorrect.
> 
> Everyone is saying that because 5 did need to prevent numbers being 
> bigger than it to prevent 6 from being bigger than it this proves that 
> it never needed to prevent numbers being bigger than it because it can 
> rely on the fact there are no numbers bigger than it thus never needed 
> to prevent them.
> 
> 
> The original biggest number criteria has the impossible requirement
> that 5 must be bigger than numbers which are bigger than it.
> Requiring 5 to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
> *The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*
> 
> (a) If biggest number X correctly eliminates numbers Y bigger than X 
> until X correctly determines there would be no bigger numbers unless 
> they were eliminated then
> 
> *X is the biggest number*
> Means X does a correct elimination of Y until X correctly matches the 
> biggest number behaviour pattern.

That's a very interesting take on the jackass' thinking. (I use the word 
"thinking" advisedly - perhaps should say "low-level neural sparks" 
instead.)
-- 
Jeff Barnett