On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decision aBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a quaint
halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input, reports
to its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact opposite
causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it based
on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of execution
with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational
phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decision a
halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input, reports to
its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact opposite
causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting
decision a
halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input,
reports to
its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact
opposite
causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject
it based on
logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of
execution with
simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a
quaint misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an
observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decision aBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a quaint
halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input, reports
to its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact opposite
causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it based
on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of execution
with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational
phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t count as true, physical colors." -- https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- colors
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decisionBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a quaint
a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input,
reports to its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact
opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it
based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of
execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational
phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum
of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t count as
true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is what
they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as when
it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article is
talking about.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting decision >>>>> a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in input,But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a quaint
reports to its caller because its caller will proceed to do the exact >>>>> opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it
based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of
execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational
phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum
of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t count as
true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is what
they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as when
it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very specific
colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article is
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:40:58 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,840 |