We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
from correct reasoning.
We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
their premises.
This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
And what exactly do you mean by that?
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
their premises.
This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
You said this 4 days ago and got nowhere.
Dan
On 8/8/2023 9:40 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
their premises.
This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also >>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
You said this 4 days ago and got nowhere.
Dan
I revised it. I simplified the unifying criterion measure.
It is not that I got nowhere. It only seems that way on
the basis of not understanding what I am saying.
The meaning of the words that I said above proves that they
are all true.
People that don't fully understand the meaning of the simple
conventional words that I use in: *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
will not be able to verify that such a system wold get rid of
incompleteness, undefinability and the principle of explosion.
There are a lot more details that must be specified before
*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE* can be fully implemented yet it
does remain a single change.
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
from correct reasoning.
On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGESimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem thus cancelling his whole theorem.And what are you changing?
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages, which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompletenessBut that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a finite series of logical conclusions.
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic from correct reasoning.
Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate >>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicateSimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises? >>>
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also >>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theoremAnd what are you changing?
thus cancelling his whole theorem.
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)
But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
finite series of logical conclusions.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
from correct reasoning.
I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate >>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicateSimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
And what are you changing?
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also >>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem >>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived >> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which >> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages, >> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)
But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the >>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
finite series of logical conclusions.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite >> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers >> of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains >> to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary >>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic >>> from correct reasoning.
I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate >>>>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicateSimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to >>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises? >>>>>
logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also >>>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem >>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.And what are you changing?
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of >>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system. >>>>
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived >>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which >>>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages, >>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)
But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the >>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a >>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite >>>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers >>>> of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains >>>> to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of everyWhich just shos you don't understand what anything means.
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary >>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic >>>>> from correct reasoning.
I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicateSimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to >>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate >>>>> logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
And what are you changing?
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem >>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of >>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system. >>>>
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived >>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages, >>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)
But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists >>>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a >>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness >>>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the >>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of >>>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains >>>> to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every >>>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary >>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic >>>>> from correct reasoning.
I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?I think that all Olcott's are related. https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:13:58 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:I think that all Olcott's are related.
On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicateSimple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to >>>>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate >>>>>>> logic.
THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
And what are you changing?
This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem >>>>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of >>>>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system. >>>>>>
That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived >>>>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which >>>>>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages, >>>>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their >>>>>> context (which are logically part of them)
But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists >>>>>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a >>>>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness >>>>>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the >>>>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of >>>>>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite >>>>>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers >>>>>> of the system, to it.
Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains >>>>>> to them are infinte in length.
You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>
We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every >>>>>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary >>>>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic >>>>>>> from correct reasoning.
I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
I am an amateur astronomer, so this is the one I'm familiar with:
William Tyler Olcott (January 11, 1873–July 6, 1936) was an American lawyer and amateur astronomer.
Born
January 11, 1873
Norwich, Connecticut
Died
July 6, 1936 (aged 63)
New Hampshire
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related. https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related. https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything
Not to mention wasting precious computer resources, which will be needed to solve the tipping point problem.So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you" in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.
not to mention how these dialogues are instantly need anything one person declares is, it was good can easily be met by an entity from his conversation Lipponen
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just >> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything
So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you" in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.
On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific
So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:53:18 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything
Not to mention wasting precious computer resources, which will be needed to solve the tipping point problem.So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.
in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"
not to mention how these dialogues are instantly need anything one person declares is, it was good can easily be met by an entity from his conversation Lipponennow back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself
t's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.
now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself
On 8/12/23 11:56 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself
It has been mentioned to him before that he has failed the Halt Deciding test.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 64:16:31 |
Calls: | 7,774 |
Files: | 12,908 |
Messages: | 5,749,824 |