Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 07:21:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c56fcfcf793d65bebd7d17db4fccafd1b8dea072@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
 <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me> <veipmb$15764$2@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 11:21:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1990314"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8674
Lines: 137

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, but in your 
various forms a statement of assumption or a question. Those are not 
validly premises.

Your presumption breaks the definition of the logic system, so it 
doesn't actually change that definition, unless you let yourself admit 
to moving to a NEW formal system with that new definition, and then you 
can't get back to it to claim you have refuted something in it.

And it isn't just changing the definition of Halting, unless you are 
also admitting that you new "Halting" isn't actually a property of the 
program described by the input too, as you definition doesn't meet the 
rquirements of those terms, so you actually need to add a few more 
definitions too so we can understand the actual logic of your POOP system.