On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.
>>
>> Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll insult
>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
>> incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!
>>
>> He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
>> anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
>> searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
>> see? If not, consider just saying nothing!
>>
>> Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
>> reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
>> persuaded to join us.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).
>>
>> There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
>> preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
>> support for "just say nothing".
>>
>> So, anyone up for it?
>>
> I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
> completely.
>
> I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
> the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
> started I commented once and since then I have done no more
> than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.

My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to formalize
the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional semantics.

After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to derive
the process required for automatically populating knowledge ontologies
such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the key required
step to create a fully functional human mind from software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
>>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
>>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.
>>>
>>> Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll insult
>>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
>>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
>>> incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!
>>>
>>> He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
>>> anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
>>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
>>> searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
>>> see? If not, consider just saying nothing!
>>>
>>> Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
>>> reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
>>> persuaded to join us.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
>>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
>>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).
>>>
>>> There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
>>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
>>> preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
>>> support for "just say nothing".
>>>
>>> So, anyone up for it?
>>>
>> I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
>> completely.
>>
>> I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
>> the results were similar.  When the Turing machine madness
>> started I commented once and since then I have done no more
>> than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.
>
> My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
> truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
> accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to formalize
> the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>
> After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to derive
> the process required for automatically populating knowledge ontologies
> such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the key required
> step to create a fully functional human mind from software.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>
>

So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
about the criteria used to measure it.

You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
is LITERALLY the Definition.

If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the
reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
NOT talk about it.

And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?

On 18/10/2022 12:06, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to not
>>>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
>>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
>>>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll
>>>> insult
>>>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
>>>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
>>>> incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!
>>>>
>>>> He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
>>>> anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
>>>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
>>>> searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
>>>> see? If not, consider just saying nothing!
>>>>
>>>> Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
>>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
>>>> reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more easily
>>>> persuaded to join us.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
>>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
>>>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
>>>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).
>>>>
>>>> There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
>>>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
>>>> preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
>>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
>>>> support for "just say nothing".
>>>>
>>>> So, anyone up for it?
>>>>
>>> I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
>>> completely.
>>>
>>> I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
>>> the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
>>> started I commented once and since then I have done no more
>>> than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.
>>
>> My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
>> truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
>> accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to
>> formalize the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional
>> semantics.
>>
>> After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to
>> derive the process required for automatically populating knowledge
>> ontologies such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the
>> key required step to create a fully functional human mind from software.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>
>>
>
> So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
> clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
> that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
> about the criteria used to measure it.
>
> You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
> for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
> is LITERALLY the Definition.
>
> If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
> logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the
> reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
> NOT talk about it.
>
> And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?

This all reads like a joke.

Unrelenting posts on Halt dividers, embarked on with no sight of an
end clause, ....continue until exhausted.

Beyond logic or reason, there is just occupation, life. Intentions
exceeds the reasons for this function. There is no reason except it
can or must. At its core, a mismatch of motives.

On 29/10/2022 13:52, Truthslave wrote:
> On 18/10/2022 12:06, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/18/22 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 9:37 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:15:15 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> How many of the regular posters here would be prepared to commit to
>>>>> not
>>>>> replying to any more of PO's nonsense? The trouble is that every reply
>>>>> just adds more fuel to the dumpster fire we (and others now departed)
>>>>> have been warming ourselves round for the last 18 or so years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keeping quiet won't be easy because to get the fix he needs he'll
>>>>> insult
>>>>> you, lie about you and misrepresent what you've said. You'll have to
>>>>> sit on your hands while he calls you ignorant or says you are
>>>>> incompetent or, even worse, that you agree with him!
>>>>>
>>>>> He won't stop posting of course (and I have no desire to curtail
>>>>> anyone's speech), but un-replied-to posts and short threads won't get
>>>>> the search weight that long ones get. Do a few Google or DuckDuckGo
>>>>> searches for key names and terms in this area. Do you like what you
>>>>> see? If not, consider just saying nothing!
>>>>>
>>>>> Naturally, he will spray other Usenet groups with his posts to rope in
>>>>> new blood (and he /will/ succeed in doing so), but if there are a
>>>>> reasonable number of us, some of these new victims might be more
>>>>> easily
>>>>> persuaded to join us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm not averse to people taking /about/ PO -- cranks
>>>>> and crank ideas can be interesting -- but since we are sane (you know
>>>>> who "we" are!), threads and sub-threads amongst ourselves will either
>>>>> reach a conclusion or will simply peter out (no pun intended).
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other options such as agreeing a short, simple reply to be
>>>>> posted, anonymously, only once in each thread. In that case my
>>>>> preference would be a for this to be a couple of quotes using PO's own
>>>>> words, but this should only be considered if there is insufficient
>>>>> support for "just say nothing".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, anyone up for it?
>>>>>
>>>> I've pretty much done just that But I'll happi[y stop commenting
>>>> completely.
>>>>
>>>> I'd met PO before. Back then he was messing with ontology and
>>>> the results were similar. When the Turing machine madness
>>>> started I commented once and since then I have done no more
>>>> than an occasional snipe. I would be delighted to stop.
>>>
>>> My purpose in refuting the HP proofs is to establish the required
>>> truckload of credibility so that my Gödel and Tarski reasoning will be
>>> accepted. My purpose in getting this reasoning accepted is to
>>> formalize the notion of truth to anchor Davidson's truth conditional
>>> semantics.
>>>
>>> After having completed all of that I would like to lead a team to
>>> derive the process required for automatically populating knowledge
>>> ontologies such as the Cyc project. I have determined that this is the
>>> key required step to create a fully functional human mind from software.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, you post falsehoods in an attempt to get credibility. You HAVE
>> clearly showed how "Credible" your logic is. You claim to have proven
>> that a Halting Program can be correctly decided as non-halting by lying
>> about the criteria used to measure it.
>>
>> You have even admitted that H^ applied to H^ Halts (aka P(P)), just that
>> for some reason that isn't the criteria that you H needs to use, when it
>> is LITERALLY the Definition.
>>
>> If you need to "prove" something that is false to be true to show a
>> logic system is valid seems to be a good arguement against it. With the
>> reputation you are establishig, probably the best thing you could do is
>> NOT talk about it.
>>
>> And what do any of those have to do with doing the last?
>
>
> This all reads like a joke.
>
> Unrelenting posts on Halt dividers, embarked on with no sight of an
> end clause, ....continue until exhausted.
>
> Beyond logic or reason, there is just occupation, life. Intentions
> exceeds the reasons for this function. There is no reason except it
> can or must. At its core, a mismatch of motives.
>
Halt deciders == Halt dividers , error made with trolls in mind,
and their typical subtext when acting in this way on Usenet forums.