Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 12:23:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <100k62d$2p028$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org> <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org> <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me> <100h052$22oen$3@dont-email.me> <100ha34$24lfd$1@dont-email.me> <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 11:23:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b233e973d588ae1a5e44657df8728b68";
	logging-data="2916424"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ag2B+qLQQQv3B1lBSXvZC"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2iam1p9JlYsYWbknSii2Yz+Z1+s=

On 2025-05-20 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/20/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-20 04:24:02 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/19/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-18 20:19:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You keep the strawman fallacy.
>>>> 
>>>> A straw man fallacy is a (usually) correct refutation of something.
>>> 
> 
> The strawman fallacy is stipulated to be incorrect
> that is what the word "fallacy" means.

True, but the incorrectness is in the atribution of the claim,
not in the refutation. If there is a fallacy in the refutation
then it is called by some other term, depending on the what is
wrong there.

>>> It seems quite stupid to say that an error of reasoning
>>> is correct. You might as well have said all dogs are cows.
>> 
>> A straw man fallacy is not an error of reasoning. It is a false
>> attribution of the claim that is refuted.
> 
> Any attempt to refute X by changing the subject to Y
> is dishonest.

Yes, but that hasn't stopped you.

>>> *The rules of correct reasoning define it as incorrect*
>> 
>> If the correctness of an inference depends on who presented the
>> claim the those "rules of correct reasoning" are unsound.
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat this before you
> notice ALL of the words that I said?

You can never find out because you can't determine what I have noticed
and what not.

-- 
Mikko