Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact -- closure

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