Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:13:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me>
	<39f1a350cac0a8431753486526da1c35f458df65@i2pn2.org>
	<ve6lsa$207d$2@news.muc.de> <ve8289$336c8$1@dont-email.me>
	<ve91hf$1ab4$1@news.muc.de>
	<7959253e834d2861b27ab7b3881619c2017e199f.camel@gmail.com>
	<ve9ju2$3ar6j$1@dont-email.me>
	<a965e0f825570212334deda4a92cd7489c33c687@i2pn2.org>
	<vea0mi$3cg0k$2@dont-email.me>
	<a4d0f7ff8798ce118247147d7d0385028ae44168@i2pn2.org>
	<veb557$3lbkf$2@dont-email.me>
	<2e6d8fc76e4e70decca1df44f49b338e61cc557e@i2pn2.org>
	<vebchp$3m87o$1@dont-email.me>
	<1071eb58637e27c9b2b99052ddb14701a147d23a@i2pn2.org>
	<vebeu2$3mp5v$1@dont-email.me>
	<58fef4e221da8d8bc3c274b9ee4d6b7b5dd82990@i2pn2.org>
	<vebmta$3nqde$1@dont-email.me>
	<99541b6e95dc30204bf49057f8f4c4496fbcc3db@i2pn2.org>
	<vedb3s$3g3a$1@dont-email.me> <vedibm$4891$2@dont-email.me>
	<72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@i2pn2.org>
	<vee6s1$7l0f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:13:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1680996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5166
Lines: 62

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:
>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon you find out that they repeat the same over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and over, neither correcting their substantial errors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor improving their arguments you have read enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott deliberately lies (he knows what is told, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to distort). olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since it isn't, your whole argument falls apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah a breakthrough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And an admission that you are just working on a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you are unaware of how valid deductive inference
>>>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You can disagree that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the premise to my reasoning is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>> By changing my premise as the basis of your rebuttal you
>>>>>>>>>>>> commit the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, how do you get from the DEFINITION of Halting being a
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine, to something that can be
>>>>>>>>>>> talked about by a PARTIAL emulation with a different final
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>> My whole point in this thread is that it is incorrect for you
>>>>>>>>>> to say that my reasoning is invalid on the basis that you do
>>>>>>>>>> not agree with one of my premises.
>>>>>>>>> The issue isn't that your premise is "incorrect", but it is
>>>>>>>>> INVALID,
>>>>>>>>> as it is based on the redefinition of fundamental words.
>>>>>>>> Premises cannot be invalid.
>>>>>>> Of course they can be invalid,
>>> It is a type mismatch error. Premises cannot be invalid.
>> So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is a valid premise?
> "valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When the
> subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute the common
> meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
> This is a fallacy of equivocation error.
So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.