Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 22:07:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e63e61ae993532b337032a3ecb7b3c059b501437@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>
	<vee6s1$7l0f$1@dont-email.me>
	<1180775691cf24be4a082676bc531877147202e3@i2pn2.org>
	<veec23$8jnq$1@dont-email.me>
	<ee549a6d463ca0eb1e74b42cb16759d577d8861f@i2pn2.org>
	<veei7b$8jnq$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 22:07:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1680996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5780
Lines: 73

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:21:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:36:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure then:
Vide.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of
>> DDD is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.
> I didn't say it exactly that way. Richard thinks that the way you say it
> makes a difference. I don't take the time to pay any attention to any
> other way to say it than the way that I did say it.
See above. You should pay attention if it didn't make a difference.

> The only one here besides me that seems to understand the actual
> software engineering aspects of this is Mike.
> Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding than
> learn-by-rote from CS textbook.
I wonder what difference you see in him?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.