Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:21:14 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <9a66c7205f3409693f7750ad9c82a8d888559fc5@i2pn2.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:21:14 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="983619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5831 Lines: 95 On 11/4/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/2/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-11-01 12:10:41 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your >>>>>>>>>>>>> message in >>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before >>>>>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before >>>>>>>>>>>>> answering. >>>>>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll. >>>>>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron >>>>>>>>>>> or a liar >>>>>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these >>>>>>>>>> ways! >>>>>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He >>>>>>>>>> is quite >>>>>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or >>>>>>>>>> similar, >>>>>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student >>>>>>>>>> in terms >>>>>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] >>>>>>>>>> believing that he >>>>>>>>>> has a unique insight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of >>>>>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that >>>>>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation >>>>>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be >>>>>>>>> viewed as incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing >>>>>>>> you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting >>>>>>>> problem because you are working in a new framework? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am admitting one of two things: >>>>>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem >>>>>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the >>>>>>> actual input finite string. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what >>>>>> the facts are. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting >>>>> it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths. >>>> >>>> A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it. >>> >>> Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional >>> deception. >> >> That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes >> all false statements. The statement itself does not change >> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in >> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated >> it. >> > > When someone says that a statement is a lie and they > only mean that it is false then they are a liar because > they are intending to deceive. No, because one of the definition of a lie *IS* just a statement that is false. Your statement is clearly a statement to decive, since you know the other definition exist, and thus you show yourself to be a BLANTANT liar, not just a pathological liar, > > To say this without intending to deceive they would say > that the statement is a lie(unintentionally false statement). > > In other words they should have just said it was "false" > to begin with if they did not intend to deceive. > No, it is a lie to say a false statement where it is only by a reckless disregard for the truth that you think it might be true. That is what is called pathological lying.