On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H
>>>>>>>>>> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to
>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>
>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>>> my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>>>
>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only
>>> be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that
>>> Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>
>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>
>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but
>>> these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>
>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has
>> been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical
>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value
>> of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
>> anchored in axioms.
>>
>
> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.

Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on
the basis of their meaning.

By what means can any analytic expression of language be correctly known
to be true besides semantic tautology (defined below)?

It is either known to be true by definition:
Dogs are defined to be animals.
Or is is known to be true by sound deductive inference:
(1) Dogs are defined to be animals.
(2) Animals are defined to be living things.
∴ Dogs are living things.

The proof of what I say is that no counter-example exists.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer