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: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:49:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <c81fcbf97a35bd428495b0e70f3b54e545e8ae59@i2pn2.org>
 <vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:49:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1848926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7241
Lines: 110

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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> "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.

Things can be invalid in a number of contexts, and the meaning that 
applies to logical arguments doesn't apply to the contruction of the 
premises that it uses.

Note, you uncertainty just shows you basic issue, we ARE talking about 
mathematical logic, as Computation Theory is a domain of Mathematics (as 
is most of Computer Science). That you admit it might be different here, 
but then say it isn't, says you don't understand what you are talking about.

> 
>> You are just showing you don't understand the concepts of the logic 
>> system, likely because you stupidly decided to not learn them.
>>
>> Self-inflicted ignorance is NOT an excuse.
> 
> 
>