Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 6/28/2024 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:But that isn't part of Forma Logic.On 2024-06-27 17:18:23 +0000, olcott said:The details of common knowledge of self-evident truth
>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.
are never required to be provided, not even in patents.
When I say that this is proven by the semantics of theAnd thus, stopping in the middle of the exectution is NOT allowed, so your emulatios that return are not "Correct Emulators"
x86 language then the entire semantics of the x86 language
is incorporated by reference.
Yes, you have NEVER shown a proof for any of your major claims, I think because you don;t understand how to do a proof.No, it is not. Sometimes it is important to say the obvious. Of course,You just did do this:
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 nave (typo for "have") not shown the proof.
As is your deflection that we could get into a long diversion on the meaning of "this".We could say that this is true: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.
>
2 + 3 = 5 and get into an infinite debate about
exactly what the English word "this" means.
A dishonest deflection like Trump did on two key
questions last night. He also flat out lied in
most of his answers.
And it seems you don't either, due to your incorerct claims about it.If you don't sufficiently understand the x86 language then*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.
>
we can stop right here. If you do then it is self-evident
that I am correct.
Just like YOU are a damned liar for saying that Halting is computable, and using the same techniques as the climate deniers to try to claim it.That human caused climate change is having drastic impactcan stop all dangerous lies that can cause the end>
of life on Earth and overturn Democracy with Fascism.
No, they can't. But they can help to figure out whom to trust.
>
on the climate is proven by verified facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
People disagreeing are damned liars in that they have condemned
themselves to actual Hell if such a place exists.
Yes, you have "redefined" the meaning of truth, but refuse to see that this mean you have to start you logic system from your new definition and show what that can do.It is the actual foundation of True(L,x) in my redefinitionThe body of formal or natural expressions of language>
that are {true on the basis of their verbal meaning}
form a semantic tautology of self-evident truth.
Which is not very helpful.
>
of the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
*True and unprovable has always been ridiculous nonsense*
True and provable in meta-mathematics corresponds toSilly thing to say, that True <-> unTrue and Provable <-> unprovable.
untrue and unprovable in PA.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
Nope, you just don't understand what you are talking about.Disagreeing with expressions that areIf you disagree that 2 + 3 = 5 then you are an ignoramus>
or a liar.
That is a big if. But I know there are people who disagree with
proven truths.
>
{true on the basis of their verbal meaning} that are proven
true on the basis of a sequence of truth preserving operations
from their verbal meaning cannot possibly be anything besides
incorrect.
The problem of induction prevents the same degree of logically
justified certainty for empirical knowledge.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.