Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Trump and Hitler
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:40:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ef2927805f07bfa71a174ae4aa30beb830deae89@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
 <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me> <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbsglu$3mme2$5@dont-email.me> <vbt8di$3rqef$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtis7$1glm$1@dont-email.me>
 <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtkt5$1psh$1@dont-email.me>
 <23df01d430433cf117a4e87de77698eac39355e1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbupcn$91rb$1@dont-email.me>
 <87b7f511951963d28217349e97fd5835a644e9bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vbvcn8$cgsm$1@dont-email.me>
 <38030d368928bd88576b32b69c6e2c8d598a9e26@i2pn2.org>
 <vc049c$grkl$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 01:40:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1846045"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc049c$grkl$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4049
Lines: 49

On 9/12/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/12/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/12/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, you ADMIT that you have lied about the ability to PROVE your 
>>>> statement as an actual ANALYTIC PROOF.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Proof" in a court of law is not a mathematical proof, dipshit?.
>>
>> Right, so your claiming the development of a system of LOGIC means you 
>> are not talking about "legal proof" (to the specified level of doubt) 
>> but the mathematical level where proof means ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
>>
> 
> Absolute certainty within a set of axioms.

But we don't know the correct set of axioms.

> 
> When we search the body of everything that was ever written
> down and find that there was never any actual evidence of
> election fraud that was sufficient to change the outcome of
> the 2020 presidential election then we can say with 100%
> perfect certainty that this evidence does not exist in
> everything that was ever written down.
> 

Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.

After all,  if you REALLY read EVERYTHING written about what happened, 
you WILL find statements claiming people seeing things that could have 
been signs of things indicating evidence of the needed level of voter 
fraud. Only when you look into that statements, and what physical 
evidence might back it, do we find those statement to be unbelievable, 
but you can't do that by "axioms".

There are statistical analysis showing it to be "virtually impossible" 
for the vote total swings to go as they went (based on some simple 
claimed to be reasonable statisitcal models)

This shows that "Logic" isn't enough, but you need the right discretion 
to make the correct initial axioms, and the "deniers" will just disagree 
with that choise of axioms, and thus your "proof" becomes invalid in 
their eyes.

Thus, we see the utter stupidity in your logic, because you need to 
agree with your claims to see that you are right, which is NOT a "proof" 
in any sense of the words.