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 19:18:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v404gb$39ri6$18@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v403f5$39ri6$17@i2pn2.org>
 <v403qs$2965i$1@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 23:18:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v403qs$2965i$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3496
Lines: 49

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" <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.
> 
> 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.

Your claims do none of that, so they aren't proof.

Just like puppies are not fifteen story office building.

You are just showing how ignorant you are of the system you are claiming 
to be working in.