Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:50:39 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <vedd8v$3q31$1@dont-email.me>
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> <vec3a5$3pqr6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:50:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52c3656c9fe83000dc1d76085d6a6a84";
	logging-data="125025"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ET+OMmVLgmLvj8cfJxXGO"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XvBKP0STO0WC18mwnqkmh8+q9BI=
Bytes: 5969

On 2024-10-11 20:54:28 +0000, olcott said:

> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter? You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but continuously calling your debating opponent a liar, and doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so in oversized upper case, goes beyond truth and comes perilously close
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to stalking.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling a liar a liar is fully justified. I don't know how often it
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs be done but readers of a liar may want to know that they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> reading a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We know Peter Olcott has lied in things that matter.  However, I believe
>>>>>>>>>>> his continual falsehoods are more a matter of delusion than mendacity.
>>>>>>>>>>> As Mike Terry has said, OP's intellectual capacity is low. Calling him
>>>>>>>>>>> a liar in virtually every post is, I think, unwarranted.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It detracts from the substance of your posts, and makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, for me at least, thoroughly unpleasant to read.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably needn't read them.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, I mostly don't - which is a pity, since Richard Damon often
>>>>>>>>>>> posts stuff worth reading.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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 ever be invalid, this is the misuse of a
> technical term of the art proving that you are clueless.

The common language meaning of "invalid" is not incompatible with the
meaning of "premise" so a premise can be invalid. The word "invalid"
is a term of art when used about an inference or a set or sequence of
inferences but not when used about a premise.

-- 
Mikko