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 ... industry standard stipulative
 definitions
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:34:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <de7cd7f76b4053453584387439af49f705b8d559@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <bde5947ebdcfb62ecd6e8968052cb3a25c4b1fec@i2pn2.org>
 <vekfi5$1d7rn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:35:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2133652"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vekfi5$1d7rn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 12258
Lines: 223

On 10/14/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========