Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Trump and Hitler
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 09:24:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vc1hv8$tcfb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbsglu$3mme2$5@dont-email.me> <vbt8di$3rqef$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtis7$1glm$1@dont-email.me>
 <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtkt5$1psh$1@dont-email.me>
 <23df01d430433cf117a4e87de77698eac39355e1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbupcn$91rb$1@dont-email.me>
 <87b7f511951963d28217349e97fd5835a644e9bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vbvcn8$cgsm$1@dont-email.me>
 <38030d368928bd88576b32b69c6e2c8d598a9e26@i2pn2.org>
 <vc049c$grkl$4@dont-email.me>
 <ef2927805f07bfa71a174ae4aa30beb830deae89@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 16:24:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d235ae0db3579965e32965ac043532df";
	logging-data="963051"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lSa+HynEP3BZF9uRuIlUL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qvziFgsR3IyQAcvQPEmPggM+AWI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ef2927805f07bfa71a174ae4aa30beb830deae89@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4712

On 9/12/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/12/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/12/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/12/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you ADMIT that you have lied about the ability to PROVE your 
>>>>> statement as an actual ANALYTIC PROOF.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Proof" in a court of law is not a mathematical proof, dipshit?.
>>>
>>> Right, so your claiming the development of a system of LOGIC means 
>>> you are not talking about "legal proof" (to the specified level of 
>>> doubt) but the mathematical level where proof means ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
>>>
>>
>> Absolute certainty within a set of axioms.
> 
> But we don't know the correct set of axioms.
> 
>>
>> When we search the body of everything that was ever written
>> down and find that there was never any actual evidence of
>> election fraud that was sufficient to change the outcome of
>> the 2020 presidential election then we can say with 100%
>> perfect certainty that this evidence does not exist in
>> everything that was ever written down.
>>
> 
> Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> After all,  if you REALLY read EVERYTHING written about what happened, 
> you WILL find statements claiming people seeing things that could have 
> been signs of things indicating evidence of the needed level of voter 
> fraud. Only when you look into that statements, and what physical 
> evidence might back it, do we find those statement to be unbelievable, 
> but you can't do that by "axioms".
> 
> There are statistical analysis showing it to be "virtually impossible" 
> for the vote total swings to go as they went (based on some simple 
> claimed to be reasonable statisitcal models)
> 
> This shows that "Logic" isn't enough, but you need the right discretion 
> to make the correct initial axioms, and the "deniers" will just disagree 
> with that choise of axioms, and thus your "proof" becomes invalid in 
> their eyes.
> 
> Thus, we see the utter stupidity in your logic, because you need to 
> agree with your claims to see that you are right, which is NOT a "proof" 
> in any sense of the words.

Actual evidence has a sufficiently precise legal definition.
That 45% of the electorate hear the same baseless lie repeated
does not count as any actual evidence what-so-ever in any court
of law. It must be evidence that election fraud did occur and
cannot be evidence that election fraud could have possibly occurred.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer