Path: ...!news.mixmin.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
 with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:12:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v7orpn$1aat4$2@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>
 <v7nlun$1412g$4@dont-email.me> <v7of1s$17h8r$5@dont-email.me>
 <v7opqs$44m$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c53d2de4672c698529f342dcfedcfa3a";
	logging-data="1387428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+b69ApB9p2Eaia8tapPCDN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+f0c9TQahVXsLK92C1e8U1tAfM8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7opqs$44m$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 6232

On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
>>>>> 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.
> 
>>> What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
>>> Fred. Zwarts had said?
> 
> 
>> In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
>> me that are listed above?
> 
> What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"?  In
> most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong, 

*No as many as one person ever actually showed that*

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design 
requirement that HHH must itself halt.

For example I have proved that my point is correct recently
to you several times and you make sure to not even look at
it on the basis that you baselessly assume that I did not
change my words to make them more clear.

There are more key details that I did not provide so
that you do not get overwhelmed and ignore everything
that I say.

> and you
> simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact.  You
> repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
> fashion, either.
> 

Whenever any rebuttal is based on a provably false assumption
I stop reading it.

> You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of
> times.  You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed
> out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry.  You are
> arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
> supporting evidence.  You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical
> logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.
> 

Mike Terry is the most competent and accurate reviewer
yet even he makes sure to simply ignore key points that
I make and leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong
without even carefully seeing what I am actually saying.

He only does this on one key issue, every other aspect
of his review seems to be accurate.

Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 >
 > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
 > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.

Mike and I could never go to closure on the details of how
this can be implemented because he begins this discussion
with the certainty that I am wrong about this issue thus
will not discuss it. Other than that Mike's reviews seem
to be accurate.

I implementing the above with a way for the simulated
instances to pass their execution trace up to the master
simulator and Mike persistently believed that this was the
master simulator passing information down to the slaves.

Every rebuttal of my work has been specifically counter-factual.

> In short, trying to debate technical matters with you is a total waste of
> time, as many people have found out.  Most of them have given up and gone
> away.
> 
> I see nothing wrong in what you call the "ad hominem attacks" against
> you.  They are true, and relevant to the rest of the discussion here.
> 

When an ad hominem attack is your only basis then you have
less than no basis at all.

>> -- 
>> 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