Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric

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?