On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Then don't post it to comp.theory.
This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.
For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
Anyone can find three idiots.
The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.
Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.
As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Then don't post it to comp.theory.
This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.
For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
Anyone can find three idiots.
The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a different meaning thus is a different question.
Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.
As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c>
On 12/24/2023 10:04 AM, Python wrote:
Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Then don't post it to comp.theory.
This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.
For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
Anyone can find three idiots.
The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.
Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.
As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
court documents show.
Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.
According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said.
Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
County, and his bond was set at $200,000.
The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
appearance is scheduled for May 4.
Case dismissed November 17, 2016
Ad Hominem does not count as a rebuttal.
https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court documents show.
Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.
According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
court documents said.
Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
and his bond was set at $200,000.
The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court appearance is scheduled for May 4.
On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:
https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
court documents show.
Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.
According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said.
Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
County, and his bond was set at $200,000.
The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
appearance is scheduled for May 4.
Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
doesn't call himself God.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:05:07 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,982 |