Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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: <v40atr$39ri6$24@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
 <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> <v3vont$a5e$3@news.muc.de>
 <v3vp3j$27d15$2@dont-email.me> <v3vpsg$39ri6$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v400hl$287qb$3@dont-email.me> <v4016m$3avmq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v401vc$28q9r$2@dont-email.me> <v404mk$3b1i8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v406e4$2965i$7@dont-email.me> <v406pr$39ri5$24@i2pn2.org>
 <v408qi$29nm5$2@dont-email.me> <v409nm$39ri6$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v409vo$29u1i$3@dont-email.me>
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: <v409vo$29u1i$3@dont-email.me>
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 <is> 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?