Re: Olcott has proved that the biggest number is 5.

On 3/18/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:

Other people may say that 6 is bigger than 5, but 6 is designed to contradict that 5 is the biggest number so this is incorrect.
>
Everyone is saying that because 5 did need to prevent numbers being bigger than it to prevent 6 from being bigger than it this proves that it never needed to prevent numbers being bigger than it because it can rely on the fact there are no numbers bigger than it thus never needed to prevent them.
>
>
The original biggest number criteria has the impossible requirement
that 5 must be bigger than numbers which are bigger than it.
Requiring 5 to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
*The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*
>
(a) If biggest number X correctly eliminates numbers Y bigger than X until X correctly determines there would be no bigger numbers unless they were eliminated then
>
*X is the biggest number*
Means X does a correct elimination of Y until X correctly matches the biggest number behaviour pattern.

 That's a very interesting take on the jackass' thinking. (I use the word "thinking" advisedly - perhaps should say "low-level neural sparks" instead.)