Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 21:47:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <v40go7$2elkd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@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>
 <v40f7v$2edgb$1@dont-email.me> <v40g58$3bc44$1@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 04:47:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2578061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rx89VLIpsvqYnE77nxjQt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJQCSS84ma92PGxjnouW+1l2zh8=
In-Reply-To: <v40g58$3bc44$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 13908

On 6/7/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========