Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<9a66c7205f3409693f7750ad9c82a8d888559fc5@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:21:14 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9a66c7205f3409693f7750ad9c82a8d888559fc5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgakr0$vele$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:21:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="983619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgakr0$vele$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5831
Lines: 95

On 11/4/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-01 12:10:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.
>>>>>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron 
>>>>>>>>>>> or a liar
>>>>>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these 
>>>>>>>>>> ways!
>>>>>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He 
>>>>>>>>>> is quite
>>>>>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or 
>>>>>>>>>> similar,
>>>>>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student 
>>>>>>>>>> in terms
>>>>>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] 
>>>>>>>>>> believing that he
>>>>>>>>>> has a unique insight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
>>>>>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation
>>>>>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
>>>>>>>>> viewed as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing 
>>>>>>>> you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting 
>>>>>>>> problem because you are working in a new framework?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am admitting one of two things:
>>>>>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
>>>>>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
>>>>>>> actual input finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what 
>>>>>> the facts are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
>>>>> it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.
>>>>
>>>> A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.
>>>
>>> Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
>>> deception.
>>
>> That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
>> all false statements. The statement itself does not change
>> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
>> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
>> it.
>>
> 
> When someone says that a statement is a lie and they
> only mean that it is false then they are a liar because
> they are intending to deceive.

No, because one of the definition of a lie *IS* just a statement that is 
false.

Your statement is clearly a statement to decive, since you know the 
other definition exist, and thus you show yourself to be a BLANTANT 
liar, not just a pathological liar,

> 
> To say this without intending to deceive they would say
> that the statement is a lie(unintentionally false statement).
> 
> In other words they should have just said it was "false"
> to begin with if they did not intend to deceive.
> 

No, it is a lie to say a false statement where it is only by a reckless 
disregard for the truth that you think it might be true. That is what is 
called pathological lying.