Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 22:01:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a13e8b1ef5c5cc7a7e4901fbe1b4e5b927f70bc0@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me>
 <100h052$22oen$3@dont-email.me> <100ha34$24lfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 02:05:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1242548"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3993
Lines: 73

On 5/20/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/20/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-20 04:24:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-18 20:19:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep the strawman fallacy.
>>>>
>>>> A straw man fallacy is a (usually) correct refutation of something.
>>>
> 
> The strawman fallacy is stipulated to be incorrect
> that is what the word "fallacy" means.

So, why have you changed the definition of question a Halt Decider is 
supposed to answer?


> 
>>> It seems quite stupid to say that an error of reasoning
>>> is correct. You might as well have said all dogs are cows.
>>
>> A straw man fallacy is not an error of reasoning. It is a false
>> attribution of the claim that is refuted.
>>
> 
> Any attempt to refute X by changing the subject to Y
> is dishonest.

So, why have you changed the definition of question a Halt Decider is 
supposed to answer?


> 
>>> *The rules of correct reasoning define it as incorrect*
>>
>> If the correctness of an inference depends on who presented the
>> claim the those "rules of correct reasoning" are unsound.
>>
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat this before you
> notice ALL of the words that I said?
> 
> Any attempt to refute X by changing the subject to Y
> is dishonest.

So, why have you changed the definition of question a Halt Decider is 
supposed to answer?

> 
>>> Description: Substituting a person’s actual
>>> position or argument with a distorted,
>>> exaggerated, or misrepresented version
>>> of the position of the argument.
>>
>> Which is a false attribution of the claim that is not relevant to
>> the correctness of the proof or refutaion of the presented version.
>> That quote confirms my claim and contradicts your counter claim.
>>
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat this before you
> notice ALL of the words that I said?
> 
> Any attempt to refute X by changing the subject to Y
> is dishonest. Natural born liars may never get this.
> 
> 
So, why have you changed the definition of question a Halt Decider is 
supposed to answer?

ALl you are doing is demonstrating that your arguement is just 
dishonest, and you are trying to project your error onto others.