Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:00:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v403f5$39ri6$17@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
 <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> <v3vont$a5e$3@news.muc.de>
 <v3vp3j$27d15$2@dont-email.me> <v3vpsg$39ri6$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v400hl$287qb$3@dont-email.me> <v4016m$3avmq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v401vc$28q9r$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 23:00:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v401vc$28q9r$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2694
Lines: 31

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" <are> "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.