Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --
 closure
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:21:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 255
Message-ID: <v40f7v$2edgb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v40ea8$3bc43$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 04:21:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2569739"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NQUevS564cTrP8DSoj7ve"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IGdGRVDQJpVs1fX9O8GAZe+v+vE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v40ea8$3bc43$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11279

On 6/7/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 ==========