Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:03:10 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

<8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:03:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 16168 Lines: 356 On 6/7/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/7/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/7/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 5:22 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:11:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That it is literally impossible to prove that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following is false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that it is true and the proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really need not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped in any tuxedo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you consider it unfalsifiable, why do you care? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of truth is unfalsifiable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "cats" "animals" is unfalsifiable because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is inherently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are conflating empirical with analytical truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific principles do not exactly apply to math. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can get on to other key points only after we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closure on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {foundation of simulating halt deciders} point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you need closure for? You only want agreement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must get closure on each of the four points of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my proof so that I know that my words can possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be understood. Without this publication is hopeless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you don't have a "Proof" because it isn't in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the form of a formal proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have is an arguement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof need not be dressed in any tuxedo. As long as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal has been shown to be categorically impossible then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point has been fully proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may not need a "tuxedo", but it needs to start with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear mention of the accepted truths it is starting from, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then clearly state the acceptable operations being >>>>>>>>>>>>>> done with them to get to the conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes perfect sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what exactly is missing from this? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The definition of the x86 programming language is assumed* >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://c9x.me/x86/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs216/guides/x86.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't actually PROVING anything!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is just a statment asking of someone can refute it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not see the difference between starting with known >>>>>>>>>>>> truth and the applying accepted operations on them to get to >>>>>>>>>>>> the final results? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask you a simple question to get you thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is one accepted fact that you started with in the above? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The statment that "No DD correctly simulated by an HH ever >>>>>>>>>>>> stops running without haing its simulation aborted by HH" is >>>>>>>>>>>> not such a statement, but is the statement you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As you have said, for a statment to be true, there must be a >>>>>>>>>>>> set of truth-preserving operations from the truth-makers of >>>>>>>>>>>> the system. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What are any of them? Where are the truth-makers? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or is that rule only when trying to talk about other things, >>>>>>>>>>>> and not what you need to do to produce a proof? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I provide a complete proof and ask that someone try and >>>>>>>>>>> refute it. >>>>>>>>>>> You say it is incomplete. I ask what exactly is missing and you >>>>>>>>>>> do not say exactly what is missing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You did no such thing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHere is the actual proof? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> listing the accepted statements that it starts from, and then >>>>>>>>>> moves though the accepted operations to the final claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is missing, EVERYTHING. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are just stating a claim with a bit of reteric to argue >>>>>>>>>> for it, but no actual truthmakers to claim it is based on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51 push ecx >>>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD >>>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD >>>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the >>>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above is the complete proof that DD correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by any HH that can possibly exist never stops running without >>>>>>>>> having its simulation aborted by HH (or crashing for OOM error). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really? WHERE IS ANY OF THE DEFINED PARTS OF A PROOF? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language are 99.999% of the proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> Realy? Then state it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========