Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure

On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

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?

What INCORRECTLY?
Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are talking about.
You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved yourself on it.

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.
 

You also twist the words of people.
You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show you don't actually understand.
You have claimed to be like God in nature.
Need I go on?