Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too

On 8/16/2024 2:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

        <BIG SNIP>

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very
short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated
HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH
reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the
abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is
incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by
HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or
your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from
rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.

That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't
"understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / mathematical
content.  He can't understand definitions or their role in proofs, or
the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being
rude or anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of
course* PO does not "really read what you write".  Surely you must have
at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice any problem
with PO's memory.]

For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his intuitions. 
Those will not change as a result of any reasoning presented to him,
because, literally, PO does not register any reasoning going on.  It's
impossible to fully imagine "what it's like to be PO", just like a
seeing person can't /truly/ imagine how say a blind person or
schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a starter, imagine you're
hearing a foreign language and don't understand the words being used. 
OK, you recognise the odd word through repetition, and over time you've
formed your own (incomplete and often incorrect) opinions of "what the
words are to do with", but that's all.  You convince yourself you
understand "what the words actually mean" but that's a delusion!  When
people reply to what you say, you don't "understand" what they're really
saying.  ok, you recognise some of the keywords, and can tell from the
tone of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with you, but
that's about it!  You recognise some of the common objections people
bring up, and over time you've developed stock phrases to repeat back to
them, but there's no "logic" involved.  You don't think all this is
strange, because it's always been this way for you.  You don't even
realise it's different for everybody else...

The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be
fully capable of reasoning, and you would realise that you don't
understand key points and so on.  Instead of a lack of language
understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability"
theme or something equally fundamental, but that's not a common
situation people can appreciate - practically /everybody/ in our lives
that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, understand
definitions, understand what people are saying to them and what their
beliefs are etc..  But PO is really not like all those normal people!

If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't happen. 
How to dispell a false intuition without using reasoning?  If you expect
to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy enough, but not really
needed!  Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is taken in by PO's
duffer speak.  Eventually most posters just get bored repeating the same
explanations to him over and over, and umm stop doing it.  [It can take
years to get tothat point...]

Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" his
claims is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" as everybody here by
now must appreciate that's far beyond his intellectual capabilities.  Or
as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with "taunting" a mentally
handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, which is obviously not
nice at all.  But PO will not recognise that he is in that position, and
the "taunters" only suspect, rather than truly believe, that this is in
fact the scenario.  So no harm done perhaps.

I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, but
the thought makes them uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ reason like
normal people, then what would be the /point/ in constantly arguing
[note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this with him over and over
and over?  This brings into question their own behaviour...  Easier
perhaps to fall back on lazy thinking and just call him a liar, lazy,
willfully ignorant and so on.

Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with it? 
For PO, I feel he has abandoned his life plan of publishing his claims
in a peer reviewed journal.  Instead I think he has settled for
maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever time
remains in his life.

I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; he is
arrogant, self deluded, and insults posters to say nothing of those such
as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their lives thinking deeply about
things and carefully developing their ideas.  It may seem Wrong that PO
could live his life casually insulting such people, and then die without
getting any come-uppance; it's just ... not ... fair !!!  :)

I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters.  People
cannot change PO into something that he isn't.  When he dies, his
mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will just carries on. 
No harm done...

I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I think
there is another ingredient mixed into PO that should not be overlooked:
he is extraordinarily lonesome. He is not a nice person, as you have
observed, and the way his mind works precludes rational and/or friendly
conversation. So he has no friends and he both wants human contact (even
electronically - how modern) and to pay back those who shun him and
treat him as the mental defective that he probably is.

So this is his social life; all of it. It is also the torture chamber
and in his mind he's the dungeon master. His method of torturing all
others is never providing positive feedback to those who want to help
improve him. Besides himself, most of the other long term participants
in these forums think of themselves as white nights. And they are
thwarted at every turn and that makes them try harder so PO wins every
encounter in the end.

Part of what I'm saying above is that all of us who participate in this
nonsense have some needs that fit in to the repetition. And those needs
not only fit in but also suck us all in. I really wish that Underwood
Dudley was still around to write another book exposing the muddled
psychology of those who are drawn to the flame of logical and
mathematical ideas without any real understanding. Perhaps we should
label that whole batch as "Math Moths".
--
Jeff Barnett