On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths
>>>>>>>>> by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be
>>>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the
>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>
>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>
>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>
> Which means that

The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
infinitely recursive.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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