Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away
 denying tautologies
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:00:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v7mdpd$pi02$3@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v7m8lm$25j9$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:00:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9aaf30c8a38b34dfe54399611020f1ec";
	logging-data="837634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VcwMlXO4ijyV6Hm9XZrBK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/AadueAbYjRfMJJA8p7c+Lx7hIA=
In-Reply-To: <v7m8lm$25j9$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4998

On 7/22/2024 1:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> 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. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
> Your "proof" is no such thing.  It makes wild assertions, and doesn't
> start from that which is acknowledged to be true.
> 

Every X has property Y or not, there is no inbetween.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

(a) At least one HHH (of the recursive chain) aborts.
(b) No HHH ever aborts.

Because HHH must halt (b) is wrong.

It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted to
prevent the non-termination of the simulating termination
analyzer does specify non-terminating behavior or it would
never need to aborted.

When I say that all black cats are cats and anyone disagrees
then we know who is lying.

> You are a crank.  Your knowledge of the subject is very much less than
> your self opinion.  There is absolutely no point pointing out specific
> mistakes you make.  You just ignore such points.  You have been ignoring
> them for years, and if I pointed out a mistake you would ignore that,
> too.  There's nothing to be gained by arguing with cranks.
> 

All rebuttals have been disagreements with tautologies like
the tautology that I just provided above.

> Your ability to reason abstractly is missing.  All this stuff you've
> spent the last 20 years on is mastered in, at most, a few hours by the
> typical student studying it.  And you still don't get it.
> 
> Lots of people on this newsgroup have tried to help you understand the
> subject matter: currenly, most notably Richard, Fred, Mikko.  In the
> past, Ben, and several others.
> 
> You're not interested in learning; you just want people to admit you're
> right, something which isn't going to happen, given how objectively wrong
> you are.  If you want people to agree with you, you'd probably be better
> arguing over a softer, less definite subject, such as politics or
> economics or religion; there, you'd surely find people to agree with any
> opinion, no matter how outlandish.  Sadly for you, that isn't the case in
> the foundations of mathematics.
> 
> So, no, I'm not going to enter into pointless arguments with you, when
> experience shows you ignore points made, insult the person you're arguing
> with and learn nothing.  I've got far better things to do with my time.
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 

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