Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away denying tautologies

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