Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?

On 2024-06-28 14:54:14 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/28/2024 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-27 17:18:23 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:
 

 I will use your system of reasoning.
The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.

 You nave not shown the proof.

 That is a stupid thing to say.

 

 The details of common knowledge of self-evident truth
are never required to be provided, not even in patents.

What is regarded as common knowledge depends on the target audience.
It also depends on what you agree. In comp.theory you can regrard
all commonly used textbooks on computation theory as common knowledge
as long as you agree with everyting they say.

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

The x86 semantics is not common knowledge in comp.theory. Claims about
x86 semantics need not be accepted as truth unless supported by a pointer
to the relevant point in Intel's documentation.

No, it is not. Sometimes it is important to say the obvious. Of course,
other things should be said, too, though not necessarily at the same time.
 

When you try to disagree with arithmetic that proves
you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.

 That "when" refers to 'never'.
 

 You just did do this:
 >>> You nave (typo for "have") not shown the proof.

Thanks. Fortunately you got the intended meaning.

The same system of reasoning that I use to show how
the input to H0(DD) does not halt.

 True, but your reasoning is not good enough for serious use.
 

We could say that this is true:
2 + 3 = 5 and get into an infinite debate about
exactly what the English word "this" means.

Indeed we could. Though people who prefer to talk about details of
English semantics usually prefer less mathematical examples.

A dishonest deflection like Trump did on two key
questions last night. He also flat out lied in
most of his answers.

He has a good knowledge about the claims voters want to hear and how
much they care abotu truth.

*Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*
*language known to be true*

 Yes, as long as you don't provide that you have proven nothing.

 If you don't sufficiently understand the x86 language then
we can stop right here.

Yes, we can stay here until you prove something.
--
Mikko