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 ...
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 09:23:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <db3b1361145f386717950b6fcb986ed6c9fa9557@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>
 <veeh55$8jnq$2@dont-email.me>
 <6366149d6d163bb696e920cfe4c8fd8dc251bb5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vef4jk$bknp$4@dont-email.me>
 <168a97aa530bf888e603d7b2af9384eaac889a1c@i2pn2.org>
 <veggha$lk27$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 13:23:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1852315"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <veggha$lk27$11@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7814
Lines: 135

On 10/13/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2024 7:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/12/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
>>>>>>>>>> have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
>>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't make the conclusion true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
>>>>>>>> of the premises is false, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
>>>>>>> seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Software engineering looks at things differently than the
>>>>>>> theory of computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not on this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
>>>>>>> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of 
>>>>>> the program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties 
>>>>>> of the whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any
>>>>> HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the
>>>>> counter-factual yes?
>>>>
>>>> No, you need to de-equivocate the statement, as I have pointed out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't even show that you even know what the word "equivocate" means.
>>
>> Sure I did, I showed the two meaning of the word that you were trying 
>> to confuse and how you were tring to use it to lie.
>>
> 
> Not at all. I provide a precise specification (as in this new post)
> [I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true]
> 
> You incorrectly paraphrase these words (your equivocation not mine)
> and then form a rebuttal on the basis of the incorrect paraphrase.
> 

The equivocation was in your exact words.

I guess you don't know that that word means, and you can't see how you 
are making the error.

It seems you are just too stupid to understand the category errors you 
are making, becuase you CHOSE to be ignorant of the topic.