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 ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:50:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bde5947ebdcfb62ecd6e8968052cb3a25c4b1fec@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
 <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me> <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me>
 <c56fcfcf793d65bebd7d17db4fccafd1b8dea072@i2pn2.org>
 <vejfg0$1879f$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:50:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2070119"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vejfg0$1879f$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 12373
Lines: 232

On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if 
>>>> it is
>>>> not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in 
>>>> definitions
>>>> are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a 
>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the 
>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument 
>>> is said to be invalid.
>>>
>>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and 
>>> all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive 
>>> argument is unsound.
>>>
>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>
>>
>> And, your "premise" isn't actually a statement of fact,
> 
> Before we can move forward on this we must be using terminology
> in the same way. You have to stop being so sloppy in your use of
> terminology.
> 
> Within the analytical framework that I am using deductive
> logical inference, calling a premise invalid is incorrect.

No, it is a term I used to apply to a premise that could not be used 
because it had no meaning in the system.

You are attempting to create a definition of a term that is already defind.

That is just INVALID.

> 
> Trying to change to a different analytical framework than
> the one that I am stipulating is the strawman deception.
> *Essentially an intentional fallacy of equivocation error*
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========