On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:

On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:

[...]

Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same questions and claims?

If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
time and everyone else's time.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/ wasting your time and everyone else's time.

If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
prove it. [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]

You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.

If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.

So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
quietness again on this topic.

And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
that.

Janis


--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 13/11/2025 10:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:

On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:

[...]

Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
questions and claims?

If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
time and everyone else's time.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
wasting your time and everyone else's time.

If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
prove it. [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]

You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.

If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.

So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
quietness again on this topic.

And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
that.

"What to do when the trisector comes?"

This is Google's AI summary, which will be an LLM, so I'm sure olcott
will have no choice but to approve ...

"""
When a "trisector" comes, which refers to someone who claims to have
solved the impossible problem of trisecting an angle with only a compass
and straightedge, you should politely disengage. Do not argue with them,
but also do not try to "help" them or validate their work, as this can
lead to frustration and conflict. Your best course of action is to
detach yourself from the situation by moving away as quickly as possible.

o Do not argue: The problem of angle trisection with only a compass and straightedge has been proven mathematically impossible. Engaging in a
debate is likely to be unproductive and frustrating.

o Do not try to help: Attempts to guide them or point out their errors
are generally not effective and can be perceived as condescending.

o Remove yourself from the situation: The most practical and respectful
action is to end the conversation and move away from the person. The
article "What to Do When the Trisector Comes" humorously suggests this involves using your legs to leave.
"""



--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

In article <87a50qpp5n.fsf@example.invalid>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.

Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott. I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts. It would, of
course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.

But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.

(*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:

[...]

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.

I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott.

Same here.

I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts. It would, of course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.

But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.

(*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

Janis


--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

In article <10f4k4l$25a78$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:

[...]

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.

There may be a misunderstanding here.

When I said "any article that contains", I meant a full-text search, not
just a header search. So, as long as the string occurs anywhere in the
article - which it almost always does - the search would find it and kill
it.

Obviously, this all depends on your newsreader, but I know trn allows this
type of search/kill.

I meant to mention this (that I was talking about a full-text search) in my previous post, but it slipped my mind when I hit "send".

--
To be evangelical is to spend every waking moment hovering around
two emotional states: fear and rage. Evangelicals are seriously the
angriest and most vicious bunch of self-pitying, constantly-moaning
whinybutts I've ever encountered.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 11/13/2025 4:18 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:

On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:

[...]

Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
questions and claims?

If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
time and everyone else's time.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
wasting your time and everyone else's time.

If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
prove it. [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]

You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.

If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.

So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
quietness again on this topic.

And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
that.

Janis

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.


--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 11/13/2025 6:36 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <87a50qpp5n.fsf@example.invalid>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.

Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott. I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts. It would, of
course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.

But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.

(*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

I am a forever poster to this group until
I get a correct reply to the above.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 11/13/2025 6:49 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:

[...]

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.

I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott.

Same here.

I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts. It would, of
course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but >> that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.

But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right >> thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.

(*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any
article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

Janis

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

If you want to rudely fail to give me the
five minute review that I have been asking
for for three years I will be a forever
poster to this group.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 11/13/2025 6:14 AM, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 13/11/2025 10:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:

On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:

[...]

Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts - >>> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same >>> questions and claims?

If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
time and everyone else's time.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/ >>> wasting your time and everyone else's time.

If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
prove it.ÿ [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]

You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.

If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.

So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
quietness again on this topic.

And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
that.

"What to do when the trisector comes?"

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

In other words you are trying to get away
with saying that you are an expert C programmer
that cannot possibly recognize a behavior pattern
that is isomorphic to infinite recursion.

This is Google's AI summary, which will be an LLM, so I'm sure olcott
will have no choice but to approve ...

"""
When a "trisector" comes, which refers to someone who claims to have
solved the impossible problem of trisecting an angle with only a compass
and straightedge, you should politely disengage. Do not argue with them,
but also do not try to "help" them or validate their work, as this can
lead to frustration and conflict. Your best course of action is to
detach yourself from the situation by moving away as quickly as possible.

o Do not argue: The problem of angle trisection with only a compass and straightedge has been proven mathematically impossible. Engaging in a
debate is likely to be unproductive and frustrating.

o Do not try to help: Attempts to guide them or point out their errors
are generally not effective and can be perceived as condescending.

o Remove yourself from the situation: The most practical and respectful action is to end the conversation and move away from the person. The
article "What to Do When the Trisector Comes" humorously suggests this involves using your legs to leave.
"""

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)