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: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:03:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v41kqe$3cg3t$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v40go7$2elkd$1@dont-email.me> <v40h9g$3bc43$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v40is9$2elkd$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 13:03:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v40is9$2elkd$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 16168
Lines: 356

On 6/7/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========