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: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:06:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v40ea8$3bc43$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v409fo$39ri6$20@i2pn2.org>
 <v409nh$29u1i$1@dont-email.me> <v40abe$39ri5$28@i2pn2.org>
 <v40bot$29u1i$4@dont-email.me> <v40co0$3bc43$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v40d4e$2acud$1@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 02:06:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3518595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v40d4e$2acud$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9579
Lines: 206

On 6/7/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 7:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I provide a complete proof and ask that someone try and refute it.
>>>>> You say it is incomplete. I ask what exactly is missing and you
>>>>> do not say exactly what is missing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You did no such thing.
>>>>
>>>> WHere is the actual proof?
>>>>
>>>> listing the accepted statements that it starts from, and then moves 
>>>> though the accepted operations to the final claim.
>>>>
>>>> What is missing, EVERYTHING.
>>>>
>>>> You are just stating a claim with a bit of reteric to argue for it, 
>>>> but no actual truthmakers to claim it is based on.
>>>
>>> _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 above is the complete proof that DD correctly simulated
>>> by any HH that can possibly exist never stops running without
>>> having its simulation aborted by HH (or crashing for OOM error).
>>
>> Really? WHERE IS ANY OF THE DEFINED PARTS OF A PROOF?
>>
> 
> The semantics of the x86 language are 99.999% of the proof.

Realy? Then state it.

> 
>> Do you even know what that means?
>>
>> No wonder you have so many problems.

*********

DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????

*********

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========