Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<ee549a6d463ca0eb1e74b42cb16759d577d8861f@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 19:00:26 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <ee549a6d463ca0eb1e74b42cb16759d577d8861f@i2pn2.org> References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <39f1a350cac0a8431753486526da1c35f458df65@i2pn2.org> <ve6lsa$207d$2@news.muc.de> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:00:26 -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: 5029 Lines: 59 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. -- 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.