On 4/3/2024 2:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/04/2024 18:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Olcott is unable to understand  what it says in the context of the
>>> real number system, even when spelled out to him in great
>>> detail. Therefore he sticks to his own (wrong) interpretation and then
>>> starts to fight it. Fighting windmills.
>>
>> Might I suggest waiting to reply to olcott until he says something
>> *new*.  It could save a lot of time and effort.
>>
>
> My suggestion would be for everyone to decide on a personal "repeat
> count" to limit saying the same thing to PO indefinitely.  They don't
> need to reveal that count.
>

0.333... how many times does the simple fact that an infinite
sequence of repeating decimals never exactly reaches 1/3
before the counter-factual claim that it does is abandoned?

I don't really care about this what I really want to know is
whether or not an abort decider can bee fooled into making
the wrong abort decision. I can't ever find that out when all
of my reviewers are liars.

01 void D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
02 {
03 H(x, x);
04 return;
05 }
06
07 void main()
08 {
09 H(D,D);
10 }

*Execution Trace*
Line 09: main() invokes H(D,D);

*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

As soon as line 03 would be simulated H sees that D would call
itself with its same input, then H aborts D.

> For example, if everyone set a limit of, say, 73 times - meaning that
> once they have explained something to PO 73 times that's it, they accept
> PO will not suddenly understand on the 74th explanation - all these
> interminably repetitious threads would soon die out!  Well, they might
> go on for a once-off of a few hundred more posts, but then that's it...
> There are simply not that many new things to say to PO!
>
> Personally I've set my repeat count of around 3 [mostly used up years
> ago], but 73 would work just as well if people are happy to spend the
> extra 70 posts.  Currently repetition counts are in the thousands I'd
> guess.  ????   Yep, I reckon RD at least has said the smae thing to PO
> many thousands of times.  (Which works fine for RD it has to be said...)
>
> Without such a personal repeat count, posters get sucked in to
> responding by habit saying the same thing while in their hearts they
> know they're wasting their lives.  Of course people can and will go over
> their personal limit; it's just a way of encouraging people to take
> stock of where they are from time to time.
>
> Mike.
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/3/24 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 2:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/04/2024 18:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Olcott is unable to understand  what it says in the context of the
>>>> real number system, even when spelled out to him in great
>>>> detail. Therefore he sticks to his own (wrong) interpretation and then
>>>> starts to fight it. Fighting windmills.
>>>
>>> Might I suggest waiting to reply to olcott until he says something
>>> *new*.  It could save a lot of time and effort.
>>>
>>
>> My suggestion would be for everyone to decide on a personal "repeat
>> count" to limit saying the same thing to PO indefinitely.  They don't
>> need to reveal that count.
>>
>
> 0.333... how many times does the simple fact that an infinite
> sequence of repeating decimals never exactly reaches 1/3
> before the counter-factual claim that it does is abandoned?

Except that the notation doesn't describe it that way.

Your ignoring how the notation is defined, just makes you are LIAR.

>
> I don't really care about this what I really want to know is
> whether or not an abort decider can bee fooled into making
> the wrong abort decision. I can't ever find that out when all
> of my reviewers are liars.

For course it can, since it gets the wrong answer for this one.

>
> 01 void D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
> 02 {
> 03   H(x, x);
> 04   return;
> 05 }
> 06
> 07 void main()
> 08 {
> 09   H(D,D);
> 10 }
>
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 09: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> As soon as line 03 would be simulated  H sees that D would call
> itself with its same input, then H aborts D.
>

Which makes D a Halting Computation, so H didn't *NEED* to abort this D.

If it is ok to abort things that don't NEED to be aborted, then your
criteria is just trivial, and worthless, like most of your logic.

>
>
>> For example, if everyone set a limit of, say, 73 times - meaning that
>> once they have explained something to PO 73 times that's it, they
>> accept PO will not suddenly understand on the 74th explanation - all
>> these interminably repetitious threads would soon die out!  Well, they
>> might go on for a once-off of a few hundred more posts, but then
>> that's it... There are simply not that many new things to say to PO!
>>
>> Personally I've set my repeat count of around 3 [mostly used up years
>> ago], but 73 would work just as well if people are happy to spend the
>> extra 70 posts.  Currently repetition counts are in the thousands I'd
>> guess.  ????   Yep, I reckon RD at least has said the smae thing to PO
>> many thousands of times.  (Which works fine for RD it has to be said...)
>>
>> Without such a personal repeat count, posters get sucked in to
>> responding by habit saying the same thing while in their hearts they
>> know they're wasting their lives.  Of course people can and will go
>> over their personal limit; it's just a way of encouraging people to
>> take stock of where they are from time to time.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>