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 20:43:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v409fo$39ri6$20@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v404gb$39ri6$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v405kp$2965i$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:43:36 -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: <v405kp$2965i$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5322
Lines: 94

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" <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.
>>
> 
> 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?