XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: richard.nospam@gmail.invalid   
      
   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.   
   """   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)