Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:42:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <28a979acc4449f0e37a7e2ee64ff8db98cab87c6@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>
 <vec4pj$3qavn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:42:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1611662"; 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: <vec4pj$3qavn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5738
Lines: 77

On 10/11/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 4:13 PM, joes wrote:
>> 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 verified fact that you are clueless about this*
>>>      It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
>>>      have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>> That doesn't make the conclusion true.
>>
> 
> It makes my conclusion that Richard is clueless about
> these things true.
> 

Nope.

Just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.

If you want to show someone is incorrect about what they say, you need 
to point out the error in what they say, and not just say they are wrong.

The problem here is you don't understand the requirements for a 
statement to be a premise, and that is it must be a logical statement in 
the system. It doesn't need to be true, but it needs to be a statement 
that could have a truth value. A "nonsnese" sentence, like one that 
presupposes things contrary to the definitions of the system, are just 
invalid in that system.

If you introduced it in the light of an alternate or expanded system, 
you might be able to show a validity, but you are not doing that, as 
when that is offered, you insist that your arguement apply to the actual 
Halting Problem Theory, which is in the base system, not an expanded 
system. And, I don't think you understand what you need to do to even 
try to work in an expanded system, as you need to be able to recognize 
and describe the affects of your change, which has been shown to be 
beyond your intelect.