Path: ...!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 10:43:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:43:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1713367"; 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: <vedibm$4891$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6065
Lines: 105

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.

> 
> Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
> 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
> 

No, each of the DDDs that those HHH partialy emulated, by the Software 
Engineering standards are Terminating Programs, and all the 
determinations made as INCORRECT, as based on incomplete information.

You are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking 
about, and just blatantly LYING about it.