Other people may say that 6 is bigger than 5, but 6 is designed to
contradict that 5 is the biggest number so this is incorrect.

Everyone is saying that because 5 did need to prevent numbers being
bigger than it to prevent 6 from being bigger than it this proves that
it never needed to prevent numbers being bigger than it because it can
rely on the fact there are no numbers bigger than it thus never needed
to prevent them.

The original biggest number criteria has the impossible requirement
that 5 must be bigger than numbers which are bigger than it.
Requiring 5 to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
*The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*

(a) If biggest number X correctly eliminates numbers Y bigger than X
until X correctly determines there would be no bigger numbers unless
they were eliminated then

*X is the biggest number*
Means X does a correct elimination of Y until X correctly matches the
biggest number behaviour pattern.

How many people understood the proof? Was it limited to 5?

On 19/03/24 00:31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> How many people understood the proof? Was it limited to 5?

It is not possible that any more than 5 people could understand it,
since 5 is the biggest number after all.

On 3/18/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:
> Other people may say that 6 is bigger than 5, but 6 is designed to
> contradict that 5 is the biggest number so this is incorrect.
>
> Everyone is saying that because 5 did need to prevent numbers being
> bigger than it to prevent 6 from being bigger than it this proves that
> it never needed to prevent numbers being bigger than it because it can
> rely on the fact there are no numbers bigger than it thus never needed
> to prevent them.
>
>
> The original biggest number criteria has the impossible requirement
> that 5 must be bigger than numbers which are bigger than it.
> Requiring 5 to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
> *The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*
>
> (a) If biggest number X correctly eliminates numbers Y bigger than X
> until X correctly determines there would be no bigger numbers unless
> they were eliminated then
>
> *X is the biggest number*
> Means X does a correct elimination of Y until X correctly matches the
> biggest number behaviour pattern.

That's a very interesting take on the jackass' thinking. (I use the word
"thinking" advisedly - perhaps should say "low-level neural sparks"
instead.)
--
Jeff Barnett

On 19/03/24 05:54, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:
>> Other people may say that 6 is bigger than 5, but 6 is designed to
>> contradict that 5 is the biggest number so this is incorrect.
>>
>> Everyone is saying that because 5 did need to prevent numbers being
>> bigger than it to prevent 6 from being bigger than it this proves that
>> it never needed to prevent numbers being bigger than it because it can
>> rely on the fact there are no numbers bigger than it thus never needed
>> to prevent them.
>>
>>
>> The original biggest number criteria has the impossible requirement
>> that 5 must be bigger than numbers which are bigger than it.
>> Requiring 5 to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
>> *The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*
>>
>> (a) If biggest number X correctly eliminates numbers Y bigger than X
>> until X correctly determines there would be no bigger numbers unless
>> they were eliminated then
>>
>> *X is the biggest number*
>> Means X does a correct elimination of Y until X correctly matches the
>> biggest number behaviour pattern.
>
> That's a very interesting take on the jackass' thinking. (I use the word
> "thinking" advisedly - perhaps should say "low-level neural sparks"
> instead.)

admittedly, it makes even less sense than olcott's non-sense