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 19:57:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v406pr$39ri5$24@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v404mk$3b1i8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v406e4$2965i$7@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 23:57:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v406e4$2965i$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3223
Lines: 38

On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them possible?
>>
> 
> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
> 
>>>>> 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.
>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they are
>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>
> 
> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
> 

Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to talk 
about the actual theorems you are talking about).

You just don't understand what the words mean.

Now, it might help to start with learning what a PROOF actually is in 
formal logic,

Then maybe you will understand why you need to actually know something 
about the topics to try to prove something.