Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 16:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 20:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:28 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:55 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 23:15 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 07:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 07:30 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:00 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 20:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 22:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 21:43 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 22:44 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 23:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 00:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 23:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 12:32 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 21:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 22:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:32 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 08:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:29 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:46 -0500
Re: Last communication with Richard Rich Yard Daemon <news3@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 +0200
Re: Last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:12 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 13:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 12:14 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:53 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:23 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-07 17:57 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:13 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:27 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:00 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 12:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 17:50 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:02 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:24 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 13:41 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 02:57 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 21:22 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:01 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:34 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 10:34 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:32 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:18 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:00 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:18 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:22 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 03:43 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:01 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 12:18 +0800
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:20 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 14:41 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:16 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 15:38 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:19 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:25 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 16:36 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:59 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 11:09 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:44 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:40 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:05 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:50 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 19:57 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 15:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-07 20:16 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:03 -0500
Re: olcott is a moron immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-08 00:14 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:17 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard (we wish) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 18:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 22:22 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:07 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:18 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:38 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:43 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:58 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:39 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:06 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:21 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:37 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:47 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 23:21 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:51 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:23 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:45 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:32 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:47 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:52 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:26 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 21:42 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 20:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:35 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 22:46 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 21:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 23:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 10:31 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:39 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:56 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:57 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:24 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:09 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:20 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:48 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:31 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:31 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:35 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 15:28 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 14:36 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 16:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-07 23:06 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 17:25 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:12 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-08 00:15 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:58 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:06 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:01 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 12:33 +0300
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:04 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-09 15:16 +0100
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:21 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 15:11 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:11 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:17 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:36 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:50 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:07 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:22 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:41 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 18:01 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 00:57 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:11 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:08 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:27 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ornott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 18:48 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 11:56 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact prescott <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 20:03 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:02 +0200
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:54 -0500
Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 20:39 +0200
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v403f5$39ri6$17@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106570 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v403qs$2965i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106574 |
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v404gb$39ri6$18@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106575 |
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.
Your claims do none of that, so they aren't proof.
Just like puppies are not fifteen story office building.
You are just showing how ignorant you are of the system you are claiming
to be working in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v405kp$2965i$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106577 |
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
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409fo$39ri6$20@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106582 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v409nh$29u1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106595 |
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40abe$39ri5$28@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106597 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40bot$29u1i$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106602 |
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).
Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40co0$3bc43$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106605 |
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?
Do you even know what that means?
No wonder you have so many problems.
What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
something new?
You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
format systems.
>
> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>
>
It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which is why
they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs correct.
You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field of logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40d4e$2acud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106607 |
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.
> Do you even know what that means?
>
> No wonder you have so many problems.
>
> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>
> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
> something new?
>
> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
> format systems.
>
>>
>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>
>>
>
> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>
> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which is why
> they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs correct.
>
>
> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field of logic.
You never pointed out what is missing.
The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 22:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40ea8$3bc43$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106609 |
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??????
*********
>>
>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>
>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>> something new?
>>
>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
>> format systems.
>>
>>>
>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>
>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which is
>> why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs correct.
>>
>>
>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field of
>> logic.
>
> You never pointed out what is missing.
> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>
> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>
So the section I marked above
What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
something new?
After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the connections
from the truth makers of the system to your statement, via the
truth-preserving operations.
Of course, this means you need to know what are the accepted truthmakers
of the system, which is likely to be your biggest problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40f7v$2edgb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106611 |
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??????
>
> *********
>
>
>>>
>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>
>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>> something new?
>>>
>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
>>> format systems.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>
>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which is
>>> why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field of
>>> logic.
>>
>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>
>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>
>
> So the section I marked above
>
>
> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>
It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
> something new?
>
What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the connections
> from the truth makers of the system to your statement, via the
> truth-preserving operations.
>
*I incorporate by reference*
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
(c) I provide this complete function
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
}
_DDD()
[00001de2] 55 push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d pop ebp
[00001df6] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.
> Of course, this means you need to know what are the accepted truthmakers
> of the system, which is likely to be your biggest problem.
People disagreeing with verified facts is my biggest problem.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 22:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40g58$3bc44$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106613 |
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.
>>
>> *********
>>
>> DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????
>>
>> *********
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>
>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>> something new?
>>>>
>>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
>>>> format systems.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>>
>>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which is
>>>> why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field of
>>>> logic.
>>>
>>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>>
>>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>>
>>
>> So the section I marked above
>>
>>
>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>
>
> It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
> snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
So?
Are you admitting you don't know it well enough to cite them?
And I will give you a little hint, what you are talking about isn't
actually specific to the x86 assembly langugage, but the sort of thing
you are talking about would apply (if it is true) to machine level
language that is powerful enough to write the simulator in.
Of course, you need a different simulator for a different machine
language, but the basic principles of simulation would still apply.
There is nothing special about the x86 that makes a difference here.
I suspect you focus on it because it is the one you know, but knowing
many, it doesn't really matter for what you are talking about.
>
> When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
> by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
>
But this isn't a court of law, and those rules do not apply.
After all, you can't state a connecting piece of logic without nameing
the truth-maker it is connecting to.
>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>> something new?
>>
>
> What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
> of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
Not a term allowed. "Proven true by its meaning" needs to either be an
axiom of the system, or a reference to the actual definitions of the
system as its truth makers.
Something true in another system can not just be assumed to be true in
this system.
>
>> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the connections
>> from the truth makers of the system to your statement, via the
>> truth-preserving operations.
>>
>
> *I incorporate by reference*
> (a) The x86 language
> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>
> (c) I provide this complete function
So, you just don't know how to write the proof.
I thought you understood proofs, why is it so hard to do this supposedly
obvious step?
>
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HH(x, x);
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00001de2] 55 push ebp
> [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
> [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001df5] 5d pop ebp
> [00001df6] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>
> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
> instruction.
Which you need to try to PROVE, but are unable to.
What are the accepted logical inference steps that connect them.
One hint, universal statements (All or NO) often need to either be based
on some other universal property that they can relate, or need to set up
an induction to move from individual items proved to a proof for all items.
>
>> Of course, this means you need to know what are the accepted
>> truthmakers of the system, which is likely to be your biggest problem.
>
> People disagreeing with verified facts is my biggest problem.
>
No, people claiming things to be verified facts that aren't are the
biggest problem.
That is the problem with election deniers.
And with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 21:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40go7$2elkd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106616 |
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.
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>> DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>
>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>>> something new?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
>>>>> format systems.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which
>>>>> is why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field
>>>>> of logic.
>>>>
>>>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>>>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>>>
>>>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>>>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the section I marked above
>>>
>>>
>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>
>>
>> It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
>> snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
>
> So?
>
> Are you admitting you don't know it well enough to cite them?
>
> And I will give you a little hint, what you are talking about isn't
> actually specific to the x86 assembly langugage, but the sort of thing
> you are talking about would apply (if it is true) to machine level
> language that is powerful enough to write the simulator in.
>
> Of course, you need a different simulator for a different machine
> language, but the basic principles of simulation would still apply.
> There is nothing special about the x86 that makes a difference here.
>
> I suspect you focus on it because it is the one you know, but knowing
> many, it doesn't really matter for what you are talking about.
>
>
>>
>> When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
>> by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
>>
>
> But this isn't a court of law, and those rules do not apply.
>
> After all, you can't state a connecting piece of logic without nameing
> the truth-maker it is connecting to.
>
>
>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>> something new?
>>>
>>
>> What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
>> of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
>
> Not a term allowed. "Proven true by its meaning" needs to either be an
> axiom of the system, or a reference to the actual definitions of the
> system as its truth makers.
>
> Something true in another system can not just be assumed to be true in
> this system.
>
>>
>>> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the
>>> connections from the truth makers of the system to your statement,
>>> via the truth-preserving operations.
>>>
>>
>> *I incorporate by reference*
>> (a) The x86 language
>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>
>> (c) I provide this complete function
>
> So, you just don't know how to write the proof.
>
> I thought you understood proofs, why is it so hard to do this supposedly
> obvious step?
>
>>
>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>> {
>> HH(x, x);
>> }
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00001de2] 55 push ebp
>> [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
>> [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>> [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00001df5] 5d pop ebp
>> [00001df6] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>>
>> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
>> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
>> instruction.
>
> Which you need to try to PROVE, but are unable to.
>
> What are the accepted logical inference steps that connect them.
>
> One hint, universal statements (All or NO) often need to either be based
> on some other universal property that they can relate, or need to set up
> an induction to move from individual items proved to a proof for all items.
>
>> *I incorporate by reference*
>> (a) The x86 language
>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 22:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40h9g$3bc43$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106619 |
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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know what that means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder you have so many problems.
>>>>
>>>> *********
>>>>
>>>> DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????
>>>>
>>>> *********
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>>>> something new?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means in
>>>>>> format systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which
>>>>>> is why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field
>>>>>> of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>>>>
>>>>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>>>>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the section I marked above
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
>>> snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> Are you admitting you don't know it well enough to cite them?
>>
>> And I will give you a little hint, what you are talking about isn't
>> actually specific to the x86 assembly langugage, but the sort of thing
>> you are talking about would apply (if it is true) to machine level
>> language that is powerful enough to write the simulator in.
>>
>> Of course, you need a different simulator for a different machine
>> language, but the basic principles of simulation would still apply.
>> There is nothing special about the x86 that makes a difference here.
>>
>> I suspect you focus on it because it is the one you know, but knowing
>> many, it doesn't really matter for what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
>>> by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
>>>
>>
>> But this isn't a court of law, and those rules do not apply.
>>
>> After all, you can't state a connecting piece of logic without nameing
>> the truth-maker it is connecting to.
>>
>>
>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>> something new?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
>>> of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
>>
>> Not a term allowed. "Proven true by its meaning" needs to either be an
>> axiom of the system, or a reference to the actual definitions of the
>> system as its truth makers.
>>
>> Something true in another system can not just be assumed to be true in
>> this system.
>>
>>>
>>>> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the
>>>> connections from the truth makers of the system to your statement,
>>>> via the truth-preserving operations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I incorporate by reference*
>>> (a) The x86 language
>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>>
>>> (c) I provide this complete function
>>
>> So, you just don't know how to write the proof.
>>
>> I thought you understood proofs, why is it so hard to do this
>> supposedly obvious step?
>>
>>>
>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>> HH(x, x);
>>> }
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00001de2] 55 push ebp
>>> [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>> [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>> [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> [00001df5] 5d pop ebp
>>> [00001df6] c3 ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>>>
>>> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
>>> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
>>> instruction.
>>
>> Which you need to try to PROVE, but are unable to.
>>
>> What are the accepted logical inference steps that connect them.
>>
>> One hint, universal statements (All or NO) often need to either be
>> based on some other universal property that they can relate, or need
>> to set up an induction to move from individual items proved to a proof
>> for all items.
>>
>
> >> *I incorporate by reference*
> >> (a) The x86 language
> >> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
Doesn't work.
Because without listing connections, you haven't moved from the already
accepted truth-makers.
>
> To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
> (perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
> x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
> of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
>
Nope, that explanation is inconsistent with your definition of "Correct
SImulation" as the correct simulation of the Call HH at 00001DED needs
to be followed by the correct simulation of the instruciton at 00001382
(that is HH) as that is what that instruction does.
In fact, it will NEVER get back to 00001DE2 as a sequence, because this
top level simulator will never trace the code back to that address.
While it is simulating the copy of HH that is simulating to those
addresses, if it is using single stepping interrupt, we may see those
lines show up again, but seperated by all the instructions between of HH
doing its simulation, decisions, and logging.
It seems you don't even understand what your own defintion of correct
simulation means.
It does NOT mean that a call to HH begins with a "new frame" of
simulations one level deeper, as that is NOT the instruction by
instruction method you described, and in fact, that description is
inaccurate if the "simulation" is conditional as needed for the decider,
as it abstracts out that conditional.
THis is what got you in trouble years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 22:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v40is9$2elkd$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106621 |
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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you even know what that means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No wonder you have so many problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> *********
>>>>>
>>>>> DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????
>>>>>
>>>>> *********
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>>>>> something new?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means
>>>>>>> in format systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>>>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs, which
>>>>>>> is why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their programs
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the field
>>>>>>> of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>>>>>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the section I marked above
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
>>>> snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> Are you admitting you don't know it well enough to cite them?
>>>
>>> And I will give you a little hint, what you are talking about isn't
>>> actually specific to the x86 assembly langugage, but the sort of
>>> thing you are talking about would apply (if it is true) to machine
>>> level language that is powerful enough to write the simulator in.
>>>
>>> Of course, you need a different simulator for a different machine
>>> language, but the basic principles of simulation would still apply.
>>> There is nothing special about the x86 that makes a difference here.
>>>
>>> I suspect you focus on it because it is the one you know, but knowing
>>> many, it doesn't really matter for what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
>>>> by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But this isn't a court of law, and those rules do not apply.
>>>
>>> After all, you can't state a connecting piece of logic without
>>> nameing the truth-maker it is connecting to.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>>> something new?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
>>>> of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
>>>
>>> Not a term allowed. "Proven true by its meaning" needs to either be
>>> an axiom of the system, or a reference to the actual definitions of
>>> the system as its truth makers.
>>>
>>> Something true in another system can not just be assumed to be true
>>> in this system.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the
>>>>> connections from the truth makers of the system to your statement,
>>>>> via the truth-preserving operations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I incorporate by reference*
>>>> (a) The x86 language
>>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>>>
>>>> (c) I provide this complete function
>>>
>>> So, you just don't know how to write the proof.
>>>
>>> I thought you understood proofs, why is it so hard to do this
>>> supposedly obvious step?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>> HH(x, x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00001de2] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>> [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>> [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>> [00001df5] 5d pop ebp
>>>> [00001df6] c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>>>>
>>>> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
>>>> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
>>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> Which you need to try to PROVE, but are unable to.
>>>
>>> What are the accepted logical inference steps that connect them.
>>>
>>> One hint, universal statements (All or NO) often need to either be
>>> based on some other universal property that they can relate, or need
>>> to set up an induction to move from individual items proved to a
>>> proof for all items.
>>>
>>
>> >> *I incorporate by reference*
>> >> (a) The x86 language
>> >> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>
> Doesn't work.
>
> Because without listing connections, you haven't moved from the already
> accepted truth-makers.
>
>>
>> To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
>> (perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
>> x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
>> of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
>>
>
> Nope, that explanation is inconsistent with your definition of "Correct
> SImulation" as the correct simulation of the Call HH at 00001DED needs
> to be followed by the correct simulation of the instruciton at 00001382
> (that is HH) as that is what that instruction does.
>
> In fact, it will NEVER get back to 00001DE2 as a sequence, because this
> top level simulator will never trace the code back to that address.
>
DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive emulation
until out-of-memory-error or the outer HH aborts its emulation.
*I just found that even Ben agreed to that*
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v41kqe$3cg3t$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106625 |
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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you even know what that means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No wonder you have so many problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DID YOU MISS THE PART BELOW HERE??????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to
>>>>>>>> show something new?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just showing you don't know what the word "Proof" means
>>>>>>>> in format systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any expert in the x86 language knows it is complete proof
>>>>>>>>> and to everyone else all x86 code is complete nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be considered a "proof" in philosophy, but it isn't hear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And most "programmers" are not very good at logical proofs,
>>>>>>>> which is why they normally don't try to actualy "Prove" their
>>>>>>>> programs correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just failed your test of having any knowledge about the
>>>>>>>> field of logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You never pointed out what is missing.
>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language is 99.999% of the proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What else is "missing" that I did not already provide?
>>>>>>> I say nothing is missing and you are bluffing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the section I marked above
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What accepted true statements are you basing your proof on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evident that any claims about an x86 language
>>>>> snippet requires expert knowledge of the x86 language.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> Are you admitting you don't know it well enough to cite them?
>>>>
>>>> And I will give you a little hint, what you are talking about isn't
>>>> actually specific to the x86 assembly langugage, but the sort of
>>>> thing you are talking about would apply (if it is true) to machine
>>>> level language that is powerful enough to write the simulator in.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you need a different simulator for a different machine
>>>> language, but the basic principles of simulation would still apply.
>>>> There is nothing special about the x86 that makes a difference here.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect you focus on it because it is the one you know, but
>>>> knowing many, it doesn't really matter for what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I say that I saw a dog run across the street this incorporates
>>>>> by reference (a patent legal term) all of the details about dogs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But this isn't a court of law, and those rules do not apply.
>>>>
>>>> After all, you can't state a connecting piece of logic without
>>>> nameing the truth-maker it is connecting to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What accepted logical actions are you use to combine them to show
>>>>>> something new?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I say is proven true by its meaning and at least 99.999%
>>>>> of this meaning is incorporated by reference to the x86 language.
>>>>
>>>> Not a term allowed. "Proven true by its meaning" needs to either be
>>>> an axiom of the system, or a reference to the actual definitions of
>>>> the system as its truth makers.
>>>>
>>>> Something true in another system can not just be assumed to be true
>>>> in this system.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, to PROVE something, you need to demonstrate the
>>>>>> connections from the truth makers of the system to your statement,
>>>>>> via the truth-preserving operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I incorporate by reference*
>>>>> (a) The x86 language
>>>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) I provide this complete function
>>>>
>>>> So, you just don't know how to write the proof.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you understood proofs, why is it so hard to do this
>>>> supposedly obvious step?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>> HH(x, x);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00001de2] 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00001de3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001de5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001de8] 50 push eax ; push DD
>>>>> [00001de9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001dec] 51 push ecx ; push DD
>>>>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>> [00001df2] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> [00001df5] 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [00001df6] c3 ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
>>>>> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
>>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> Which you need to try to PROVE, but are unable to.
>>>>
>>>> What are the accepted logical inference steps that connect them.
>>>>
>>>> One hint, universal statements (All or NO) often need to either be
>>>> based on some other universal property that they can relate, or need
>>>> to set up an induction to move from individual items proved to a
>>>> proof for all items.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> *I incorporate by reference*
>>> >> (a) The x86 language
>>> >> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>
>> Doesn't work.
>>
>> Because without listing connections, you haven't moved from the
>> already accepted truth-makers.
>>
>>>
>>> To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
>>> (perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
>>> x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
>>> of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, that explanation is inconsistent with your definition of
>> "Correct SImulation" as the correct simulation of the Call HH at
>> 00001DED needs to be followed by the correct simulation of the
>> instruciton at 00001382 (that is HH) as that is what that instruction
>> does.
>>
>> In fact, it will NEVER get back to 00001DE2 as a sequence, because
>> this top level simulator will never trace the code back to that address.
>>
>
> DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive emulation
> until out-of-memory-error or the outer HH aborts its emulation.
> *I just found that even Ben agreed to that*
ONLY if your HH fails to be a decider.
So, if we are in that case, you failed before we began.
You forget that HH must always do the same thing on every call to it, so
if DD(DD) gets stuck, so does HH(DD,DD).
Remember, a given DD is built on a specific HH, and it is THAT HH that
it will confound, and that HH that determines its behavior.
All you are doing is proving that your HH just isn't the "Pure Function"
you claim it to be.
>
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 23:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v404mk$3b1i8$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106570 |
Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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.
Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them possible?
>>> 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.
Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they are
wrong. You could just post all of them.
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 18:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v406e4$2965i$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106580 |
On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>> 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.
> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them possible?
>
Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>>>> 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.
> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they are
> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>
My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
belief of the nature of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-07 19:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure |
| Message-ID | <v406pr$39ri5$24@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106585 |
On 6/7/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:21 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:35:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Why do you care about rebuttals if you don't even consider them possible?
>>
>
> Until other people understand that I am correct my words are
> too difficult to be understood making publication impossible.
>
>>>>> 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.
>> Publication IS hopeless. As far as your words can be understood, they are
>> wrong. You could just post all of them.
>>
>
> My words only seem wrong on the basis of a false religious
> belief of the nature of correct simulation.
>
Nope, most of your words are just wrong. (at least when you try to talk
about the actual theorems you are talking about).
You just don't understand what the words mean.
Now, it might help to start with learning what a PROOF actually is in
formal logic,
Then maybe you will understand why you need to actually know something
about the topics to try to prove something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web