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 16:25:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6366149d6d163bb696e920cfe4c8fd8dc251bb5b@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>
 <veeh55$8jnq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:25:24 -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: <veeh55$8jnq$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7140
Lines: 130

On 10/12/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>
>>>> But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
>>>> of the premises is false, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
>>> seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
>>
>> No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on
>>
>>>
>>> Software engineering looks at things differently than the
>>> theory of computation.
>>
>> Not on this point.
>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
>>> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>
>> Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the 
>> program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the 
>> whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
> 
> So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any
> HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the
> counter-factual yes?

No, you need to de-equivocate the statement, as I have pointed out.

If you mean the behavior of the DDD, that HHH emulated, then the answer 
is that a proper emulation of that DDD will reach that point, but no HHH 
when emulating its own DDD will, showing that HHH doesn't do a "correct 
emulation"

IF you mean the behavior of the emulation by HHH of the input DDD, then 
you can answer that no HHH can reach that point, but that DOES NOT mean 
the input in "non-terminating", just that it can not be correctly 
emulated by that HHH.

> 
> Two guys with masters degrees in computer science do not agree.
> That seems to indicate that your EE degrees provide somewhat of
> a deficient basis for software engineering.

And 1000s of other would say otherwise.

I guess you argee with Trump that you can will with a 2-100 vote.

> 
> Mike seems to be the only one here that is not deficient in
> actual software engineering.
> 

Nope, just you.