Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:25:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4a19213b2d4082f6a1dd1893d4d4a7899f37f400@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
 <veec23$8jnq$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee549a6d463ca0eb1e74b42cb16759d577d8861f@i2pn2.org>
 <veei7b$8jnq$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:25:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1750235"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <veei7b$8jnq$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5800
Lines: 81

On 10/12/24 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:36:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of DDD
>> is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.
>>
> 
> I didn't say it exactly that way. Richard thinks that the
> way you say it makes a difference. I don't take the time
> to pay any attention to any other way to say it than the
> way that I did say it.

In other words, you ADMIT that you may have said it incorrectly, and 
when I corrected you, your erroneously said I lied, rather than accept 
the correction.

> 
> The only one here besides me that seems to understand the
> actual software engineering aspects of this is Mike.

Nope

> 
> Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding
> than learn-by-rote from CS textbook.
> 
> 

Nope, just shows your stupidity.