| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vediib$4891$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 05:20:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: <vediib$4891$3@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> <vedd8v$3q31$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 12:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f696c00f58e5fa7aed5825233c6f706"; logging-data="139553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fKpPl6wvcnfDEL3s+4Mf9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kLyndnWIeUh4ZloG665S9wwde2I= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vedd8v$3q31$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 6893 On 10/12/2024 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > 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. Within the term of the art of deductive logic premises can be true or false and cannot bed valid or 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. > Valid applies to the inference steps, not the premises. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer