Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3124061ebd5f49aa527a190d03878be0a4258403@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
	<veec23$8jnq$1@dont-email.me>
	<c81fcbf97a35bd428495b0e70f3b54e545e8ae59@i2pn2.org>
	<vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me>
	<7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
	<veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me> <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1993196"; 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

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:53:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>> On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. 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?
>>>>>> "invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art of
>>>>>> deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use of the
>>>>>> term.
>>>>>> One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because it is
>>>>>> gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise is invalid
>>>>>> within the terms-of-the-art.
>>>>> No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other
>>>>> multi-) valued logics.
>>>> Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be no such thing as an
>>>> invalid premise. Mathematical logic may do this differently.
>>> Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a
>>> concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a
>>> logical interpretation.
>>> Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have
>>> multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.
>> The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it
>> is not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in
>> definitions are just adaptations to the details of different
>> requirements.
> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
> of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
> unsound.
Whatever. Your premise is false, so your conclusion at least cannot be
derived, even if your argument were valid. You were just hiding behind
the meaning of "valid" and not actually explaining why your premise
should be right. You could have said so much earlier instead of this
sidetrack.

-- 
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.