Path: ...!news.misty.com!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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:49:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5o085$1eli4$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me>
 <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me> <v5b7cm$qtn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btmn$v0vb$6@dont-email.me> <v5e3df$1gco9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me> <v5ggmi$21nkc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h1bo$24jbd$1@dont-email.me> <v5j2qu$2kgmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@dont-email.me> <v5ltqp$394ns$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5miqm$3cibm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:49:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1529412"; 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: <v5miqm$3cibm$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6654
Lines: 151

On 6/28/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/28/2024 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 17:18:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will use your system of reasoning.
>>>>> The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>
>>>> You nave not shown the proof.
>>>
>>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>>
> 
> The details of common knowledge of self-evident truth
> are never required to be provided, not even in patents.

But that isn't part of Forma Logic.


> 
> When I say that this is proven by the semantics of the
> x86 language then the entire semantics of the x86 language
> is incorporated by reference.

And thus, stopping in the middle of the exectution is NOT allowed, so 
your emulatios that return are not "Correct Emulators"

> 
>> No, it is not. Sometimes it is important to say the obvious. Of course,
>> other things should be said, too, though not necessarily at the same 
>> time.
>>
>>> When you try to disagree with arithmetic that proves
>>> you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
>>> all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.
>>
>> That "when" refers to 'never'.
>>
> 
> You just did do this:
>  >>> You nave (typo for "have") not shown the proof.


Yes, you have NEVER shown a proof for any of your major claims, I think 
because you don;t understand how to do a proof.

> 
>>> The same system of reasoning that I use to show how
>>> the input to H0(DD) does not halt.
>>
>> True, but your reasoning is not good enough for serious use.
>>
> We could say that this is true:
> 2 + 3 = 5 and get into an infinite debate about
> exactly what the English word "this" means.
> 
> A dishonest deflection like Trump did on two key
> questions last night. He also flat out lied in
> most of his answers.

As is your deflection that we could get into a long diversion on the 
meaning of "this".

2 + 3 = 5 is easily provable by someone who understand the basic 
principles of number theory.

YOU can't prove your claims, because you don't understand the basic of 
Computation theory.

> 
>>> *Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*
>>> *language known to be true*
>>
>> Yes, as long as you don't provide that you have proven nothing.
>>
> 
> If you don't sufficiently understand the x86 language then
> we can stop right here. If you do then it is self-evident
> that I am correct.

And it seems you don't either, due to your incorerct claims about it.

> 
>>> can stop all dangerous lies that can cause the end
>>> of life on Earth and overturn Democracy with Fascism.
>>
>> No, they can't. But they can help to figure out whom to trust.
>>
> That human caused climate change is having drastic impact
> on the climate is proven by verified facts
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
> 
> People disagreeing are damned liars in that they have condemned
> themselves to actual Hell if such a place exists.

Just like YOU are a damned liar for saying that Halting is computable, 
and using the same techniques as the climate deniers to try to claim it.

> 
>>> The body of formal or natural expressions of language
>>> that are {true on the basis of their verbal meaning}
>>> form a semantic tautology of self-evident truth.
>>
>> Which is not very helpful.
>>
> It is the actual foundation of True(L,x) in my redefinition
> of the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
> *True and unprovable has always been ridiculous nonsense*

Yes, you have "redefined" the meaning of truth, but refuse to see that 
this mean you have to start you logic system from your new definition 
and show what that can do.

To try to just change an existing system, just makes you a LIAR.

> 
> True and provable in meta-mathematics corresponds to
> untrue and unprovable in PA.
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

Silly thing to say, that True <-> unTrue and Provable <-> unprovable.

Sounds like someone is on something.

Note, you claim shows up NO WHERE in the page you cite.

> 
>>> If you disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 then you are an ignoramus
>>> or a liar.
>>
>> That is a big if. But I know there are people who disagree with
>> proven truths.
>>
> 
> Disagreeing with expressions that are
> {true on the basis of their verbal meaning} that are proven
> true on the basis of a sequence of truth preserving operations
> from their verbal meaning cannot possibly be anything besides
> incorrect.
> 
> The problem of induction prevents the same degree of logically
> justified certainty for empirical knowledge.
> 

Nope, you just don't understand what you are talking about.

Note, "Formal Systems" only have in them the meanings put into them by 
their defintions. Trying to use meanings not in the system, is just LYING.