Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:42:05 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 01:42:06 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3518595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5755 Lines: 105 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 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.