Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure

On 6/7/24 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

That it is literally impossible to prove that the following is false
conclusively proves that it is true and the proof really need not be
wrapped in any tuxedo.

Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them possible?
>

>
Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>

We can get on to other key points only after we have closure on this
{foundation of simulating halt deciders} point.

What do you need closure for? You only want agreement.

I must get closure on each of the four points of my proof so that I know
that my words can possibly be understood. Without this publication is
hopeless.

Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they are
wrong. You could just post all of them.
>

>
My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>

>
Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to talk about the actual theorems you are talking about).
>

>
That by itself shows a reckless disregard for the truth when
taken within the context that you refuse to even look at the
proof that my most important words are correct.
>
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
 >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
 >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
 >
 > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
 > are correct, because I am not willing to put
 > that effort into your worthless claim.
 >
>
The proof that you refuse to look at proves that my notion of
a simulating halt decider does apply to the halting problem
proofs. There is one more step to make this proof complete.
>

>
WHAT PROOF?
>
You haven't given a proof, just a lame arguement.
>
>

That you say my "words are just wrong" making sure to not
look at the proof that they are correct <is> actionable.
What would your pastor think about you telling these lies?
>
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

>
and who cares?
>
>

>
OK then I will try and contact your pastor.
>

>
To tell him what?
>
That I told a unrepentant sinner that he was going to go to hell?

>
Salvation
We believe that a person is saved by the grace of God through faith in
Jesus,(Romans 3:23-25). We believe that when a person repents and is
baptized, their sins are forgiven, they receive the Holy Spirit and they
are added to Jesus’ church. (Acts 2:38)
>
Can salvation be lost?
Some say yes and some say no.
>

>
Yes, that is one of the big questions to be debated.
>
Your behavior makes me see no evidence that you actually ever got into a true state of salvation, so the question is unlikely important to you.
>
>

>
My behavior that I call out those the incorrectly denigrate my work?

>
What INCORRECTLY?
>
Your work fails to show any understanding of the material you are talking about.
>
You may THINK you know something, but you have totally decieved yourself on it.
>
>

That is most of all of my behavior. Besides calling out those that
denigrate my work I sit on the couch and watch TV, there is not much
more to my behavior than that.
>

>
You also twist the words of people.
>
You LIE in your claiming to refute statements, that your words show you don't actually understand.
>

 I do accurately paraphrase the contextual meaning of words
that people say to show these words in an unfavorable light.

Nope, you tend to twist their meaning when you paraphrase, becaue you don't actually understand the meaning.

 That I can prove that some of the expert views of these things
are incorrect does not mean that I am incorrect.

But you haven't actually PROVEN anything.
You make baseless claims that you can not show to be true.

 To show that I am incorrect one must go through every single
detail of my whole view of these things and find an error.

No, you have it backwards. For YOU to claim the experts are wrong, you need to find the error in their proof. Something you have been unable to do, in part because you don't seem to understand what a proof is.
When you make a claim, you need to provid the proof that it is true, building the chain from the agreed upon truth-makers of the system.
To disprove you, someone only needs to point out ONE LINK in that proof that isn't valie.

 That you flatly refused to do that counts as defamation it
does not count as rebuttal.

Nope. Shows you don't understand the rules you are working under.
Until you actually prove something, me telling you that you haven't proven something is just a true statement, and not defamation.

 On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
 >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
 >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
 >
 > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
 > are correct, because I am not willing to put
 > that effort into your worthless claim.
 >
 Maybe now that we have worked together to make
my words more precise we can finally get closure.

So, you need to show that your claim has something to make it worth looking at.
Since partial simulation do not show non-halting, as you clearly are trying to get to, you need to establish the usefulness of this path before you go down it.
Or perhaps, if you can actually build a full formal proof of your claim, that will also establish the guard rails of the meaning to make it reasonable to look at.
Just asking me to "agree" to accept an unproven statement is not going to work.

 It looks like I am on novel agents in three months on the basis
that the results of my chemotherapy did not last long enough,
less than 24 months is POD24.
 

So, you need to work fast, and learn how to actually make a proof.