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

On 6/8/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 22:35:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
The distinction is not that clear. How do whe know what is the right
way to identify an analytical truth? Why do we consider certain ways
right and other wrong? Why do we apply the word "truth" to both
empirical and analitical truth?
>

>
This is actual one of the telling parts of his arguement.
>
The analytical / empirical distinction is part of the philosophy of logic, where the base definitions of what is truth get fuzzier.
>
In Formal Systems, technically ALL truth is Analytic (except for the axioms of the system).

 _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]
 We can see by running the code or bench checking that
the above code specifies

Except that we can not "run" that code, as it isn't a complete program.
You can only run PROGRAMS, not fragments.

 that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86 emulator H
can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction.

Not at all, maybe you are making your mistake by changing things too many times, but UTM H(DDD,DDD) can easily reach that final state if HH is the decider that it is supposed to be, showing that decider HH to be wrong.
If HH isn't supposed to be the decider of the Linz proof, then who cares, you are just admitting to working on a straw man.
The only program we are interested in, if we are trying to talk about the Linz or Sipser proofs, is the program based on the exact decider it is supposed to be refuting.
Any other program is uninteresting, and just a straw man.

 

Sometimes in formal system will talk about things being empirical-like if we are asking if there exists or doesn't exist an element with a property, and we determine that by examining each element to find one, verse working with logic on the property itself.
>
Thus the list of prime numbers would be sort of an empirical truth.
>
That he focuses so much on this shows that he doesn't have a formal logic background, but a philosophical background (and not that good of one at that) which shows in his other problems, like writing proofs.