Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say

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