Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Trump and Hitler

On 9/13/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/12/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/12/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/12/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/12/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/12/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
So, you ADMIT that you have lied about the ability to PROVE your statement as an actual ANALYTIC PROOF.
>

>
"Proof" in a court of law is not a mathematical proof, dipshit?.

>
Right, so your claiming the development of a system of LOGIC means you are not talking about "legal proof" (to the specified level of doubt) but the mathematical level where proof means ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
>

>
Absolute certainty within a set of axioms.

>
But we don't know the correct set of axioms.
>

>
When we search the body of everything that was ever written
down and find that there was never any actual evidence of
election fraud that was sufficient to change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election then we can say with 100%
perfect certainty that this evidence does not exist in
everything that was ever written down.
>

>
Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
After all,  if you REALLY read EVERYTHING written about what happened, you WILL find statements claiming people seeing things that could have been signs of things indicating evidence of the needed level of voter fraud. Only when you look into that statements, and what physical evidence might back it, do we find those statement to be unbelievable, but you can't do that by "axioms".
>
There are statistical analysis showing it to be "virtually impossible" for the vote total swings to go as they went (based on some simple claimed to be reasonable statisitcal models)
>
This shows that "Logic" isn't enough, but you need the right discretion to make the correct initial axioms, and the "deniers" will just disagree with that choise of axioms, and thus your "proof" becomes invalid in their eyes.
>
Thus, we see the utter stupidity in your logic, because you need to agree with your claims to see that you are right, which is NOT a "proof" in any sense of the words.

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

Yes, and that legal definition comes with a part that says it can only be determined by the appropriate Court of Law, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for any program to actually determine "sufficently evidence" excpet by finding a court case pronouncing it, and even that might not be binding on another court.
"Rules of Evidence" are matters for LEGAL cases, not the determination of "Truth".
Sorry, but you are just showing your ignorance of what you talk about.
*YOU* Made the claim that you think it is possible for "AI" to determine ACTUAL TRUTH, and then you back off and admit that you doh't mean that but something else, but you alse want to try to claim that to be actual truth.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are too stupid to understand what you are actually talking about.