On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
<NIP>
>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>
> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due to
> his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the difference
> is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I don't think
> he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why one is needed -
> when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of following it in the
> way other people do, so it just seems to be someone making claims to try
> to win their side of an argument.  So when someone else doesn't agree
> with his claims he is genuinely confused as to why that should be -
> either people are /deliberately/ biassed against him, or they're just
> too stupid (or lack the expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>
> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>
>>
>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and either
>> he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>
> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>
> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made an
> effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others - and
> I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence that PO was
> using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to others points.
>
> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things he
> intuitively thought were true all along but in different words, like it
> was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of a reasoned
> position.  Or he simply ignored what people said, presumably because he
> couldn't understand their argument.  And in any case it didn't matter
> because the things he thought were correct, he still thought were
> correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At this point he would
> just make a general cut/paste response of one of his claims not really
> related to the point being discussed.  Or cut paste some irrelevent
> definition from Wikipedia of something everybody else already knows and
> isn't in dispute...
>
> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of reason"
> is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying, right? ]
>
>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>> in my books, still lying.
>
> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree that's
> a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the facts,
> and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even trying because
> it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes himself into
> believing those facts aren't important because he has some superior view
> of what's going on, perhaps involving "categorically exhaustive
> reasoning" or whatever....)
>
> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.  I
> can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence that
> he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured to me,
> it took me a while to become convinced.)
>
> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study, and
> would consequently misunderstand just about everything people were
> saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation on an
> academic level with such a person?
>
> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a basic
> cognitive problem going on here!
>
> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/ the
> reality of the situation, but there are many examples of delusional
> frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem very strange...
> I don't understand that side of things at all!
I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis (since
it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO in their
own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre have repeated
their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word, forever; maybe more
than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive. Some time back I
posed questions to this group (we are a loosely coupled group I think) -
Do you really believe that if you explain something to PO he will
appreciate it and perhaps change his viewpoint? Have you made an inch of
progress in the last decade? There has been no change in the content of
anyone's posts since my questions.
I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play "No
Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind you of
comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply to
correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded as
if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and my
reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in most of
his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to people and
threw internet tantrums often.
In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
don't like the target.
I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO after
all this time. They will never help him technically or improve him or
their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one who has
spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I think we all
do that to some extent.
Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J. Licklider,
who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO), and the real
visionary of computers improving society. He is also the one whose
vision started the network research that built the ancestor of our
modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could see
USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
rolling over in his grave."
--
Jeff Barnett

On 12/2/2021 11:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>     <NIP>
>
>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>
>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why one
>> is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the expertise
>> etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>
>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>
>>>
>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>
>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>
>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others -
>> and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence that
>> PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to others
>> points.
>>
>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something everybody
>> else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>
>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of reason"
>> is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying, right? ]
>>
>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>> in my books, still lying.
>>
>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even trying
>> because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes himself
>> into believing those facts aren't important because he has some
>> superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving "categorically
>> exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>
>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>
>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people were
>> saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation on an
>> academic level with such a person?
>>
>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>
>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/ the
>> reality of the situation, but there are many examples of delusional
>> frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem very
>> strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>
> I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis (since
> it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO in their
> own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre have repeated
> their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word, forever; maybe more
> than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive. Some time back I
> posed questions to this group (we are a loosely coupled group I think) -
> Do you really believe that if you explain something to PO he will
> appreciate it and perhaps change his viewpoint? Have you made an inch of
> progress in the last decade? There has been no change in the content of
> anyone's posts since my questions.
>
> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play "No
> Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind you of
> comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>
> Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
> assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
> i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply to
> correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded as
> if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and my
> reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in most of
> his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to people and
> threw internet tantrums often.
>
> In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
> fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
> to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
> disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
> brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
> don't like the target.
>
> I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO after
> all this time. They will never help him technically or improve him or
> their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one who has
> spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I think we all
> do that to some extent.
>
> Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J. Licklider,
> who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO), and the real
> visionary of computers improving society. He is also the one whose
> vision started the network research that built the ancestor of our
> modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could see
> USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
> rolling over in his grave."

I am seeing things at a philosophically deeper level than learned by
rote people ever see things.

It is true that when-so-ever any input to simulating halt decider H(X,Y)
only stops running when its simulation has been aborted that this input
is correctly decided as not halting.

This does eliminate the conventional halting problem feedback loop
between the halt decider and its input that would otherwise make this
input undecidable to this decider.

int main() { P(P); } calls H(P,P) simulates P(P) that never halts.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/2/2021 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 11:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>      <NIP>
>>
>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>
>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
>>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
>>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>
>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>
>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
>>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
>>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
>>> others points.
>>>
>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
>>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>
>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>> right? ]
>>>
>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>>> in my books, still lying.
>>>
>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
>>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
>>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>
>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>
>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>
>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>
>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>
>> I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis
>> (since it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO
>> in their own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre
>> have repeated their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word,
>> forever; maybe more than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive.
>> Some time back I posed questions to this group (we are a loosely
>> coupled group I think) - Do you really believe that if you explain
>> something to PO he will appreciate it and perhaps change his
>> viewpoint? Have you made an inch of progress in the last decade? There
>> has been no change in the content of anyone's posts since my questions.
>>
>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>
>> Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
>> assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
>> i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply
>> to correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded
>> as if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and
>> my reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in
>> most of his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to
>> people and threw internet tantrums often.
>>
>> In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
>> fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
>> to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
>> disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
>> brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
>> don't like the target.
>>
>> I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO
>> after all this time. They will never help him technically or improve
>> him or their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one
>> who has spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I
>> think we all do that to some extent.
>>
>> Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J.
>> Licklider, who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO),
>> and the real visionary of computers improving society. He is also the
>> one whose vision started the network research that built the ancestor
>> of our modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could
>> see USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
>> rolling over in his grave."

The following is a precise example of what I meant my disassociated
behavior. Text book I think.
> I am seeing things at a philosophically deeper level than learned by
> rote people ever see things.
>
> It is true that when-so-ever any input to simulating halt decider H(X,Y)
> only stops running when its simulation has been aborted that this input
> is correctly decided as not halting.
>
> This does eliminate the conventional halting problem feedback loop
> between the halt decider and its input that would otherwise make this
> input undecidable to this decider.
>
> int main() { P(P); } calls H(P,P) simulates P(P) that never halts.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
Peter, I'd suggest you relax. The last several people in this thread
were trying to find some understanding of your affected behavior,
perhaps with an objective of treating you more kindly. But it's so
difficult to do when you pop in these conversations (though they are
public and about you) with complete and total non sequitur comments.

Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 15:41:19 UTC+8, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 12/2/2021 11:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>
> >> <NIP>
> >>
> >>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
> >>>
> >>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
> >>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
> >>> to his problems. Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
> >>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
> >>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders. I
> >>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
> >>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
> >>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
> >>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument. So
> >>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
> >>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
> >>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
> >>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
> >>>
> >>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
> >>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
> >>>
> >>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
> >>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
> >>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
> >>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
> >>> others points.
> >>>
> >>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
> >>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
> >>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
> >>> a reasoned position. Or he simply ignored what people said,
> >>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument. And in any
> >>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
> >>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof". At
> >>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
> >>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed. Or cut
> >>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
> >>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
> >>>
> >>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
> >>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
> >>> right? ]
> >>>
> >>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
> >>>> in my books, still lying.
> >>>
> >>> I simply don't think he is choosing that. (If he were, I'd agree
> >>> that's a form of lying. But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
> >>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
> >>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
> >>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
> >>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
> >>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
> >>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
> >>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
> >>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
> >>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning... (Once the thought occured
> >>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
> >>>
> >>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
> >>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
> >>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
> >>> were saying to him. How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
> >>> on an academic level with such a person?
> >>>
> >>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
> >>> facade of an argument for his case. The problem is it's not at all
> >>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
> >>> doesn't actually follow at all. Not much better than when he felt he
> >>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
> >>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
> >>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
> >>>
> >>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
> >>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
> >>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
> >>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
> >>
> >> I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis
> >> (since it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO
> >> in their own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre
> >> have repeated their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word,
> >> forever; maybe more than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive.
> >> Some time back I posed questions to this group (we are a loosely
> >> coupled group I think) - Do you really believe that if you explain
> >> something to PO he will appreciate it and perhaps change his
> >> viewpoint? Have you made an inch of progress in the last decade? There
> >> has been no change in the content of anyone's posts since my questions.
> >>
> >> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
> >> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
> >> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
> >>
> >> Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
> >> assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
> >> i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply
> >> to correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded
> >> as if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and
> >> my reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in
> >> most of his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to
> >> people and threw internet tantrums often.
> >>
> >> In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
> >> fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
> >> to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
> >> disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
> >> brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
> >> don't like the target.
> >>
> >> I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO
> >> after all this time. They will never help him technically or improve
> >> him or their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one
> >> who has spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I
> >> think we all do that to some extent.
> >>
> >> Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J.
> >> Licklider, who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO),
> >> and the real visionary of computers improving society. He is also the
> >> one whose vision started the network research that built the ancestor
> >> of our modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could
> >> see USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
> >> rolling over in his grave."
> The following is a precise example of what I meant my disassociated
> behavior. Text book I think.
> > I am seeing things at a philosophically deeper level than learned by
> > rote people ever see things.
> >
> > It is true that when-so-ever any input to simulating halt decider H(X,Y)
> > only stops running when its simulation has been aborted that this input
> > is correctly decided as not halting.
> >
> > This does eliminate the conventional halting problem feedback loop
> > between the halt decider and its input that would otherwise make this
> > input undecidable to this decider.
> >
> > int main() { P(P); } calls H(P,P) simulates P(P) that never halts.
> >
> > Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
> Peter, I'd suggest you relax. The last several people in this thread
> were trying to find some understanding of your affected behavior,
> perhaps with an objective of treating you more kindly. But it's so
> difficult to do when you pop in these conversations (though they are
> public and about you) with complete and total non sequitur comments.
>
> Notice also your comments about seeing deeper and diverting from the
> topic makes you no friends. I do not expect you to change or become more
> insightful at this late stage of your life. But at least you might
> consider abandoning the totally off target remarks and insults. If you
> see more deeply and broadly than others, take a few minutes of your
> valuable time and learn how to communicate on technical and
> philosophical matters. The shaping of these discussions and dialogues is
> precise to improve communications. Why has this been done? Millennia of
> experience has shown that sloppy talk that can't be pinned down is very
> very likely to be wrong and it takes too much of others time to do your
> dirty work for you.
>
> So far those who have tried have found no buried gold. All they have
> gotten from you is off topic comments, insults, and nothing that makes
> much sense. Completely ungrammatical statements and misuse of common
> words with agreed upon meanings -- agreed upon by the vast majority of
> people interested in a field -- reflects badly on the speaker. It does
> not engender images of a thinker and scholar; it engenders ignorance,
> wast of time, and no respect for the listener.
>
> When someone asks you what you meant by some statement and comment, do
> them the courtesy of answering. If you can. They were interested enough
> to ask so they would understand you better. If upon reflection you
> aren't sure what you meant, just say it was a brain fart and move on.
> When someone is actually listening to you -- and that's what you want
> and what you crave -- they will ask for clarifications so they can
> understand: it's not an attack.
>
> Once again I would suggest you look for professional help for the full
> spectrum of your health problems. It might make your life more bearable.
> --
> Jeff Barnett

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>
> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>
You think it's all a massive troll?

..

On 12/3/21 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 11:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>      <NIP>
>>
>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>
>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
>>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
>>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>
>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>
>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
>>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
>>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
>>> others points.
>>>
>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
>>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>
>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>> right? ]
>>>
>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>>> in my books, still lying.
>>>
>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
>>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
>>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>
>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>
>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>
>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>
>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>
>> I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis
>> (since it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO
>> in their own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre
>> have repeated their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word,
>> forever; maybe more than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive.
>> Some time back I posed questions to this group (we are a loosely
>> coupled group I think) - Do you really believe that if you explain
>> something to PO he will appreciate it and perhaps change his
>> viewpoint? Have you made an inch of progress in the last decade? There
>> has been no change in the content of anyone's posts since my questions.
>>
>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>
>> Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
>> assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
>> i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply
>> to correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded
>> as if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and
>> my reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in
>> most of his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to
>> people and threw internet tantrums often.
>>
>> In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
>> fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
>> to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
>> disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
>> brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
>> don't like the target.
>>
>> I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO
>> after all this time. They will never help him technically or improve
>> him or their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one
>> who has spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I
>> think we all do that to some extent.
>>
>> Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J.
>> Licklider, who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO),
>> and the real visionary of computers improving society. He is also the
>> one whose vision started the network research that built the ancestor
>> of our modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could
>> see USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
>> rolling over in his grave."
>
> I am seeing things at a philosophically deeper level than learned by
> rote people ever see things.

And, as I have pointed out, if that is what you are trying to do, you
need to start at a different point. If your goal is to reformulate
'Mathematics' to use a different logical system, you have to go back and
start at the ROOTS, and not at some field way down the line.

On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>>
>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>>
> You think it's all a massive troll?
Three possibilities:
1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
2. Troll
3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.

I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
(notice that is plural) of most responses.

I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
and so on.

What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
--
Jeff Barnett

On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
<...snip analysis...>
>
> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play "No
> Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind you of
> comp.theory and give you goose bumps.

I'm afraid I've never heard of it! But now I'm intrigued by why you
think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and read
it. :) I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.

Mike.

On 12/3/2021 3:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> <...snip analysis...>
>>
>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>
> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and read
> it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
Goose bumps are an infliction in a context. The context is comp.theory -
I did not mean to imply that you would shiver without provocation.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 05:35:49 UTC+8, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
> >>
> >> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
> >> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
> >>
> > You think it's all a massive troll?
> Three possibilities:
> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
> 2. Troll
> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
>
> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
>
> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
> and so on.
>
> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
> --
> Jeff Barnett

As I remember, the behavior of the subject had changed several times.
The symptom seems keeping deteriorating.
What I noticed is that the subject can not do logical AND and logical implication.
I can not explain further since I am not familiar with brain physiology and
cognitive psychology.

On 12/4/2021 8:45 AM, wij wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 05:35:49 UTC+8, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
>>>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>>>>
>>> You think it's all a massive troll?
>> Three possibilities:
>> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
>> 2. Troll
>> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
>> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
>>
>> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
>> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
>>
>> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
>> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
>> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
>> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
>> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
>> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
>> and so on.
>>
>> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
>> --
>> Jeff Barnett
>
> As I remember, the behavior of the subject had changed several times.
> The symptom seems keeping deteriorating.
> What I noticed is that the subject can not do logical AND and logical implication.
> I can not explain further since I am not familiar with brain physiology and
> cognitive psychology.
>

The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
acknowledge this obvious fact:

On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/3/2021 3:35 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>>>
>>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to
>>> achieve his goal.
>>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>>>
>> You think it's all a massive troll?
> Three possibilities:
> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
> 2. Troll
> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
>
> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
>
> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
> and so on.
>
> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?

The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
acknowledge this obvious fact:

On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/3/2021 5:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>>
>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>>
> You think it's all a massive troll?
>
> .
>

You are the only one that is neither too stupid nor dishonest to
acknowledge this obvious fact:

On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we know that X never halts and H is always correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers such
>>>>>>>>> that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops
>>>>>>>>> running we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant
>>>>>>>>> proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just amounts
>>>>>>>> to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is non-halting, so why
>>>>>>>> bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
>>>>>>>> after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test
>>>>>>>> for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not you
>>>>>>> dumb bunny).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that P(n)
>>>>> is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s) and
>>>>> the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a method
>>>>> to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively proving
>>>>> P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the infinity of
>>>>> proves necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the recipe that we
>>>>> provided assures us that such a proof exists for all choices of m.
>>>>>
>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>> parts:
>>>>>
>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>
>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>
>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger assumptions,
>>>>> see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the induction step
>>>>> (or case).
>>>>
>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>
>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to be
>>> deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the case?
>>> Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said above is
>>> a genuine application of the mathematical principle of induction.
>>> [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that, since he lacks
>>> any understanding of the principle, but the question is about what PO
>>> /believes/.]
>>>
>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.  I
>>> see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
>>> confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations for
>>> a state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily
>>> having any deceptive intent.
>>>
>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used, and
>>> so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might not
>>> be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these situations I suspect
>>> his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to him/ it
>>> really does seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
>>>
>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these cases,
>>> but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that he could
>>> look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself that, yes
>>> there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that there are 5, or 3,
>>> for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that - not just be lying
>>> about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of Oceana!  :)  Or,
>>> perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false claims - not easy to
>>> say either way.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option -
>>> I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.  What
>>> he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone "proved" the
>>> PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever to anything...
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>
>>
>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>
> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due to
> his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the difference
> is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I don't think
> he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why one is needed -
> when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of following it in the
> way other people do, so it just seems to be someone making claims to try
> to win their side of an argument.  So when someone else doesn't agree
> with his claims he is genuinely confused as to why that should be -
> either people are /deliberately/ biassed against him, or they're just
> too stupid (or lack the expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>
> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>
>>
>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and either
>> he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>
> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>
> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made an
> effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others - and
> I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence that PO was
> using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to others points.
>
> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things he
> intuitively thought were true all along but in different words, like it
> was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of a reasoned
> position.  Or he simply ignored what people said, presumably because he
> couldn't understand their argument.  And in any case it didn't matter
> because the things he thought were correct, he still thought were
> correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At this point he would
> just make a general cut/paste response of one of his claims not really
> related to the point being discussed.  Or cut paste some irrelevent
> definition from Wikipedia of something everybody else already knows and
> isn't in dispute...
>
> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of reason"
> is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying, right? ]
>
>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>> in my books, still lying.
>
> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree that's
> a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the facts,
> and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even trying because
> it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes himself into
> believing those facts aren't important because he has some superior view
> of what's going on, perhaps involving "categorically exhaustive
> reasoning" or whatever....)
>
> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.  I
> can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence that
> he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured to me,
> it took me a while to become convinced.)
>
> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study, and
> would consequently misunderstand just about everything people were
> saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation on an
> academic level with such a person?
>
> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a basic
> cognitive problem going on here!
>
> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/ the
> reality of the situation, but there are many examples of delusional
> frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem very strange...
> I don't understand that side of things at all!
>
>
> Mike.

On 12/4/21 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then we know that X never halts and H is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct to abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers such
>>>>>>>>>> that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops
>>>>>>>>>> running we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant
>>>>>>>>>> proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just
>>>>>>>>> amounts to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is
>>>>>>>>> non-halting, so why bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
>>>>>>>>> after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test
>>>>>>>>> for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not
>>>>>>>> you dumb bunny).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that
>>>>>> P(n) is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s)
>>>>>> and the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a
>>>>>> method to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively
>>>>>> proving P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the
>>>>>> infinity of proves necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the
>>>>>> recipe that we provided assures us that such a proof exists for
>>>>>> all choices of m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>>> parts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>>
>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger
>>>>>> assumptions, see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the
>>>>>> induction step (or case).
>>>>>
>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>>
>>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to be
>>>> deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the case?
>>>> Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said above
>>>> is a genuine application of the mathematical principle of induction.
>>>> [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that, since he lacks
>>>> any understanding of the principle, but the question is about what
>>>> PO /believes/.]
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.  I
>>>> see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
>>>> confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations for
>>>> a state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily
>>>> having any deceptive intent.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used,
>>>> and so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might
>>>> not be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these situations I
>>>> suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to
>>>> him/ it really does seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
>>>>
>>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these cases,
>>>> but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that he
>>>> could look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself
>>>> that, yes there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that there are
>>>> 5, or 3, for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that - not just be
>>>> lying about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of Oceana!  :)
>>>> Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false claims - not
>>>> easy to say either way.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option -
>>>> I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.  What
>>>> he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone "proved" the
>>>> PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever to anything...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>
>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why one
>> is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the expertise
>> etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>
>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>
>>>
>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>
>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>
>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others -
>> and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence that
>> PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to others
>> points.
>>
>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something everybody
>> else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>
>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of reason"
>> is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying, right? ]
>>
>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>> in my books, still lying.
>>
>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even trying
>> because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes himself
>> into believing those facts aren't important because he has some
>> superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving "categorically
>> exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>
>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>
>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people were
>> saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation on an
>> academic level with such a person?
>>
>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>
>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/ the
>> reality of the situation, but there are many examples of delusional
>> frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem very
>> strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>
>
> The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
> acknowledge this obvious fact:
>
> On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> > H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> > aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
> >
>
>

On 12/4/2021 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 12/4/21 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then we know that X never halts and H is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct to abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>> such that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops
>>>>>>>>>>> running we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant
>>>>>>>>>>> proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just
>>>>>>>>>> amounts to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, so why bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other
>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
>>>>>>>>>> after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test
>>>>>>>>>> for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not
>>>>>>>>> you dumb bunny).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that
>>>>>>> P(n) is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s)
>>>>>>> and the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a
>>>>>>> method to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively
>>>>>>> proving P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the
>>>>>>> infinity of proves necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the
>>>>>>> recipe that we provided assures us that such a proof exists for
>>>>>>> all choices of m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>>>> parts:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger
>>>>>>> assumptions, see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the
>>>>>>> induction step (or case).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to
>>>>> be deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the
>>>>> case? Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said
>>>>> above is a genuine application of the mathematical principle of
>>>>> induction. [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that,
>>>>> since he lacks any understanding of the principle, but the question
>>>>> is about what PO /believes/.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.  I
>>>>> see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
>>>>> confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations
>>>>> for a state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily
>>>>> having any deceptive intent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used,
>>>>> and so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might
>>>>> not be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these situations I
>>>>> suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to
>>>>> him/ it really does seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these
>>>>> cases, but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that
>>>>> he could look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself
>>>>> that, yes there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that there
>>>>> are 5, or 3, for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that - not
>>>>> just be lying about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of
>>>>> Oceana!  :) Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false
>>>>> claims - not easy to say either way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option
>>>>> - I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.
>>>>> What he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone
>>>>> "proved" the PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever
>>>>> to anything...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>
>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
>>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
>>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>
>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>
>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
>>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
>>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
>>> others points.
>>>
>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
>>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>
>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>> right? ]
>>>
>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>>> in my books, still lying.
>>>
>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
>>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
>>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>
>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>
>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>
>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>
>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>
>>
>> The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
>> acknowledge this obvious fact:
>>
>> On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  > Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
>>  > H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
>>  > aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>>  >
>>
>>
>
> And you are too stupid to see the flaw in your argument caused by sloppy
> language.
>
> H needs to be a SPECIFIC decider.
>
> If for a GIVEN H, and the P built from it, we have that
>
> H(P,P) returns 0, then it is clear that when we run P(P) as a
> computation THAT P(P) will call H and that H will do a simulation of a
> COPY of P(P), and H will abort THAT COPY, and return 0 to the calling P
> and that P will return and halt.
>
> Thus the outer P is shown to run and halt in finite time purely on its
> own (using ITS copy of H), and thus is clearly a Halting Computation.
>
> This means that the P that H is simulating will have exactly the same
> behavior, and thus H MSUT have used incorrect logic to decide that it
> was Non-Halting. PERIOD.
>

On 12/4/21 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/21 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider H simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then we know that X never halts and H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always correct to abort the simulation of this input and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>> such that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y)
>>>>>>>>>>>> stops running we correctly conclude that (this invocation
>>>>>>>>>>>> invariant proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just
>>>>>>>>>>> amounts to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, so why bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other
>>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use
>>>>>>>>> 'any'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do
>>>>>>>>>>> so after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually
>>>>>>>>>>> test for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not
>>>>>>>>>> you dumb bunny).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that
>>>>>>>> P(n) is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base
>>>>>>>> case(s) and the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1)
>>>>>>>> provide a method to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by
>>>>>>>> successively proving P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually
>>>>>>>> perform the infinity of proves necessary for all choices of m >=
>>>>>>>> 0, but the recipe that we provided assures us that such a proof
>>>>>>>> exists for all choices of m.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>>>>> parts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger
>>>>>>>> assumptions, see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of
>>>>>>>> the induction step (or case).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to
>>>>>> be deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the
>>>>>> case? Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said
>>>>>> above is a genuine application of the mathematical principle of
>>>>>> induction. [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that,
>>>>>> since he lacks any understanding of the principle, but the
>>>>>> question is about what PO /believes/.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>>>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.
>>>>>> I see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin
>>>>>> to confabulation, where a patient invents memories and
>>>>>> explanations for a state of affairs they believe to be true,
>>>>>> without necessarily having any deceptive intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>>>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>>>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>>>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used,
>>>>>> and so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this
>>>>>> might not be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these
>>>>>> situations I suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so
>>>>>> "malleable" that /to him/ it really does seem that he was telling
>>>>>> the truth all the time??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these
>>>>>> cases, but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED
>>>>>> that he could look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince
>>>>>> himself that, yes there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that
>>>>>> there are 5, or 3, for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that -
>>>>>> not just be lying about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of
>>>>>> Oceana!  :) Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false
>>>>>> claims - not easy to say either way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>>>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option
>>>>>> - I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.
>>>>>> What he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone
>>>>>> "proved" the PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever
>>>>>> to anything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>>
>>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are
>>>> genuine "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what
>>>> the difference is between his arguments and those of other
>>>> responders.  I don't think he understands what a proof needs to be,
>>>> or really why one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he
>>>> has no way of following it in the way other people do, so it just
>>>> seems to be someone making claims to try to win their side of an
>>>> argument.  So when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is
>>>> genuinely confused as to why that should be - either people are
>>>> /deliberately/ biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or
>>>> lack the expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>>
>>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I
>>>> made an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and
>>>> others - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any
>>>> evidence that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or
>>>> respond to others points.
>>>>
>>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating
>>>> things he intuitively thought were true all along but in different
>>>> words, like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not
>>>> lack of a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in
>>>> any case it didn't matter because the things he thought were
>>>> correct, he still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his
>>>> proof".  At this point he would just make a general cut/paste
>>>> response of one of his claims not really related to the point being
>>>> discussed.  Or cut paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia
>>>> of something everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>>
>>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>>> right? ]
>>>>
>>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which
>>>>> is in my books, still lying.
>>>>
>>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding
>>>> the facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently
>>>> deludes himself into believing those facts aren't important because
>>>> he has some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple
>>>> arguments. I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no
>>>> harm in monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY
>>>> evidence that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the
>>>> thought occured to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>>
>>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>>
>>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong,
>>>> and doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he
>>>> felt he should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and
>>>> simply introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there
>>>> is a basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>>
>>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>> The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
>>> acknowledge this obvious fact:
>>>
>>> On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  > Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
>>>  > H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
>>>  > aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you are too stupid to see the flaw in your argument caused by
>> sloppy language.
>>
>> H needs to be a SPECIFIC decider.
>>
>> If for a GIVEN H, and the P built from it, we have that
>>
>> H(P,P) returns 0, then it is clear that when we run P(P) as a
>> computation THAT P(P) will call H and that H will do a simulation of a
>> COPY of P(P), and H will abort THAT COPY, and return 0 to the calling
>> P and that P will return and halt.
>>
>> Thus the outer P is shown to run and halt in finite time purely on its
>> own (using ITS copy of H), and thus is clearly a Halting Computation.
>>
>> This means that the P that H is simulating will have exactly the same
>> behavior, and thus H MSUT have used incorrect logic to decide that it
>> was Non-Halting. PERIOD.
>>
>
>
> #include <stdint.h>
> typedef void (*ptr)();
>
> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
> {
>   x(y);
>   return 1;
> }
>
> // Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
> // and Strachey(1965) P
> void P(ptr x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
>   P(P);
> }
>
> On the basis of the above code that never stops running you know that
> this criteria is met

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 21:35:49 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
> >>
> >> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
> >> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
> >>
> > You think it's all a massive troll?
> Three possibilities:
> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
> 2. Troll
> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
>
> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
>
> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
> and so on.
>
> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
>
In the olden days when science was done by gentlemen, you used
to be able to publish articles like "A case of disassociated neurosis
in a Usent poster".
However now it's harder. Purely descriptive observations are no longer
given much weight, and journals want samples and statistically-
significant hypthoesis tests.

On 12/5/2021 3:37 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 21:35:49 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
>>>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
>>>>
>>> You think it's all a massive troll?
>> Three possibilities:
>> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
>> 2. Troll
>> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
>> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
>>
>> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
>> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
>>
>> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
>> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
>> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
>> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
>> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
>> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
>> and so on.
>>
>> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
>>
> In the olden days when science was done by gentlemen, you used
> to be able to publish articles like "A case of disassociated neurosis
> in a Usent poster".
> However now it's harder. Purely descriptive observations are no longer
> given much weight, and journals want samples and statistically-
> significant hypthoesis tests.

Do you think observation of USENET behavior of the subject for over a
decade would constitute sufficient scholarly research? (There must be at
between 50-100,000 messages and they all say more or less the same wrong
thing.) I at first was considering publishing in one of the soft science
journals, i.e., those that think research consists of reporting standard
deviations and confidence intervals. The science is very soft because
the key to publication is to pick the statistical test that supports the
conclusion you reached before doing the experiment. There are so many to
chose from that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. On second and third
thought, I decide that the result belongs to applied mathematics;
applied vector spaces in particular. Here is an example of a well known
mathematical idea that provides insight into human behavior without an
adequate way to quantify the relevant measures. Qualitative progress.

Many, many years ago it was popular to name AI and semi-AI ventures
after ancient Greeks, e.g., Delphi Consensus Method. It was at least as
ridiculous as today's practice of completely bastardizing the name so it
forms a good acronym. So I wrote and distributed a paper with title
Orthogonal Greek Planning. The general idea was that you took a set of
ancient Greek philosophers such that no two of them agreed on any basic
topic: such a group formed a basis for a Greek space. You then were able
to weight their opinions in support of various ideas and those weights
constituted vectors. Instead of being restricted to having systems that
were consistent with one philosopher, you could develop more flexibility
by picking an orthogonal base for your model. I thought this idea was
revolutionary at the time. And I now see that what I originally proposed
in this thread is old hat. But then again, most publications are.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 18:27:20 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/5/2021 3:37 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 21:35:49 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2021 4:05 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:51:44 UTC, wij wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> He knows his inability, he is conducting this 'experimenting' to achieve his goal.
> >>>> Except the mysterious 'inability', he is very cunning and persistent.
> >>>>
> >>> You think it's all a massive troll?
> >> Three possibilities:
> >> 1. Disassociated neurosis / psychosis
> >> 2. Troll
> >> 3. An incarnation of Wisenbaum's Eliza program that was called Perry the
> >> Paranoid. I think that a Perry-like script could do a good simulation.
> >>
> >> I also believe that Eliza-like scripts could do adequate simulations
> >> (notice that is plural) of most responses.
> >>
> >> I'm looking at the three possibilities I've listed above and notice that
> >> they are reasonably independent of each other and can be blended in
> >> varying ratios: In other words we have a formal basis for a three
> >> dimensional wack-a-doodle vector space. I smell publication here and
> >> there are so many varied and different fields to choose from, e.g.,
> >> psychology, sociology, human factors, online resources, modern living,
> >> and so on.
> >>
> >> What do you all think. Are we on to something here?
> >>
> > In the olden days when science was done by gentlemen, you used
> > to be able to publish articles like "A case of disassociated neurosis
> > in a Usent poster".
> > However now it's harder. Purely descriptive observations are no longer
> > given much weight, and journals want samples and statistically-
> > significant hypthoesis tests.
> Do you think observation of USENET behavior of the subject for over a
> decade would constitute sufficient scholarly research? (There must be at
> between 50-100,000 messages and they all say more or less the same wrong
> thing.)
>
You can apply the scholarly apparatus to anything, from Homer to variants
on condom packets. Because Usenet is electronic, and PO writes in English,
you don't have most of the difficulties that scholars of ancient texts face. No
possible transcripton errors, for instance. On the other hand, you do have a
massive body of material, probably more than the entire Bible, and whilst you
say all the message say more or less the same thing, I don't think any two
are identical. Presenting that information in a digestible way might be a challenge.
>
> I at first was considering publishing in one of the soft science
> journals, i.e., those that think research consists of reporting standard
> deviations and confidence intervals. The science is very soft because
> the key to publication is to pick the statistical test that supports the
> conclusion you reached before doing the experiment. There are so many to
> chose from that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
Whilst some soft science is like that, a lot of it consists of descriptions in
English of socila or psychological phenomena. There might be a few statistical
analyses in there. People who aren't trained in human disciplines often
make the mistake of thinking that the quantitative data are "the results".
>
> On second and third
> thought, I decide that the result belongs to applied mathematics;
> applied vector spaces in particular. Here is an example of a well known
> mathematical idea that provides insight into human behavior without an
> adequate way to quantify the relevant measures. Qualitative progress.
>
> Many, many years ago it was popular to name AI and semi-AI ventures
> after ancient Greeks, e.g., Delphi Consensus Method. It was at least as
> ridiculous as today's practice of completely bastardizing the name so it
> forms a good acronym. So I wrote and distributed a paper with title
> Orthogonal Greek Planning. The general idea was that you took a set of
> ancient Greek philosophers such that no two of them agreed on any basic
> topic: such a group formed a basis for a Greek space. You then were able
> to weight their opinions in support of various ideas and those weights
> constituted vectors. Instead of being restricted to having systems that
> were consistent with one philosopher, you could develop more flexibility
> by picking an orthogonal base for your model. I thought this idea was
> revolutionary at the time. And I now see that what I originally proposed
> in this thread is old hat. But then again, most publications are.
>
It's also a near reinvention of fuzzy logic. Terms like "Platonist" don't have
precise meanings. You'd probably even be able to dig out a paper somewhere
by a serious scholar which disputes whether Plato was a "Platonist".
However they don't have no meaning either, a category doesn't lose its
validity because we can present some marginal or ambiguous member.

Your difference is that instead of having a partial set membership of "Delphic"
and partial set membership of "Cynic", you declare a vector space on the
pints of difference between "Delphic" and "Cynic" and place the system on a
continuum between them.

On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> <...snip analysis...>
>>
>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>
> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and read
> it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.

I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
wasn't bad I suppose. (No regrets on my part for time spent, but I'm
not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )

I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it didn't
remind me of comp.theory.

[Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting the
same claims over and over and people making the same responses over and
over - I expect that's it? But we're not in hell, and PO and Richard
both get something personally from posting, and all the rest of us could
easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by kill-filing PO, so
it's not really like the play, I think.]

Mike.

On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>
>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>
>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
>> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and read
>> it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>
> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but I'm
> not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>
> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it didn't
> remind me of comp.theory.
>
> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting the
> same claims over and over and people making the same responses over and
> over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO and Richard
> both get something personally from posting, and all the rest of us could
> easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by kill-filing PO, so
> it's not really like the play, I think.]
>
> Mike.

If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every single
month of posts has new details that have never been brought up before.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>
>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>>>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>>>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
>>> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and
>>> read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>
>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but I'm
>> not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>
>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>
>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting the
>> same claims over and over and people making the same responses over
>> and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO and
>> Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the rest
>> of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by
>> kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>
>> Mike.
>
> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every single
> month of posts has new details that have never been brought up before.
>

I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO! What seems like constant progress to
you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
different words over and over. The changes are all quite unimportant.

Also, it is both childish and rude to deliberately insult posters in the
title of your posts. More to the point, as a Deluded Dumbo you are in
no position to judge other poster's intelligence - you simply lack the
intellect to properly understand them! That's not your fault, but you
have the capacity to at least remain polite, should you choose that path. :)

Regards,
Mike.

On 12/12/21 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every single
> month of posts has new details that have never been brought up before.
>

You may come up with new ways to say it, but you consistently are making
the same mistakes for the last years.

You fundamentally just show that you don't have an inkling about the
subject you are spouting off about.

You also just prove that you are to dumb to see the errors you make and
refuse to learn even the basics of what you want to talk about.

Intentional ingorance is just another form of lying. You may not know
better, but only because you refuse to learn what is the truth.

On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
>>>> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and
>>>> read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>
>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but I'm
>>> not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>
>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>
>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by
>>> kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>
>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought up
>> before.
>>
>
> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
concrete model of computation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable for
their inputs.

As long as computable function H(x,y) correctly maps its inputs to a
final accept or reject state that directly applies to the actual
behavior of this actual input then the halt status decision of H is
correct for this input.

No function is ever accountable for anything besides its actual inputs.
If it is the case that the input to H(P,P) never stops running unless it
is aborted when H returns 0 it is necessarily correct and impossibly
incorrect.

*Any other instance of P(P) that is not an input parameter to H is
totally irrelevant to the actual behavior of the actual input to H*

*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2*

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

> Also, it is both childish and rude to deliberately insult posters in the
> title of your posts.  More to the point, as a Deluded Dumbo you are in
> no position to judge other poster's intelligence - you simply lack the
> intellect to properly understand them!  That's not your fault, but you
> have the capacity to at least remain polite, should you choose that
> path. :)
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer