Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <v40d8k$2acud$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v40atr$39ri6$24@i2pn2.org>
 <v40bvi$29u1i$5@dont-email.me> <v40ctd$3bc43$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 03:48:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2438093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jtUqrCml6Ze7kCpEhcP2J"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YJ6aRDZkDTVwfSsFeNStCH0XfPA=
In-Reply-To: <v40ctd$3bc43$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6444

On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Salvation
>> We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
>> Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
>> baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
>> are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>>
>> Can salvation be lost?
>> Some say yes and some say no.
>>
> 
> Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
> 
> Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a 
> true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
> 
> 

My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?
That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
more to my behavior than that.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer