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

On 6/7/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
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.
>

>
I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words
that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light.

>
Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you don't actually understand the meaning.
>

 Mostly it is people that dogmatically assert that my notion of
DD correctly simulated by HH is not consistent with what they
memorized.

Because sometimes DOGMA is what is the rules.
Your concept of HH being able to answer based on its own definition of correct simulation just make is NOT A HALT DECIDER, because its mapping function is not that of Halting.
Your error is that you speak out of rote words you picked up while not learning anything, and thus don't actually make sense.

 They either lack sufficient technical skill to understand my
correction of their incorrect assumption or want to call me
wrong without bothering to look at my proof to the contrary.

Nope, YOU don't have sufficient technical skill to understand the system you are trying to talk about.
You are not the "God" of compuation theory, and thus can not change the rules of it. Halting has a defintion, and you can not change it and still be in Computation Theory,
If you try, you are cast out of the land, and nothing you do will have any ability to affect that actual system.
All you have proven is that you are not working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory, and likely aren't even in the bounds of Computation Theory at all.
This is why you get the rejections, you have gotten yourself kicked out of the garden for your bad behavior.
If you start with the admission of what you are wanting to try to look at being different, then perhaps you can come up with something that might be of interest, but of course, any proof about olcott-halting wouldn't affect any of the standard proofs of things you don't like that are based on the canonical definitions of Halting, so we still have incompleteness, and the inability to have a universal Truth Predicate.

 

>
That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things
are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect.

>
But you haven't actually PROVEN anything.
>
You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true.
>

>
To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single
detail of my whole view of these things and find an error.

>
No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable to do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is.
>
When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true, building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system.
>
To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that proof that isn't valie.
>

>
That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it
does not count as rebuttal.

>
Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under.
>
Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation.
>

>
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.
 >
>
Maybe now that we have worked together to make
my words more precise we can finally get closure.

>
So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth looking at.
>
Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path before you go down it.
>
Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your claim, that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make it reasonable to look at.
>
Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going to work.
>

>
It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis
that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough,
less than 24 months is POD24.
>

>
So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof.
>

 What I really need it to get the liars to repent.