Path: ...!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: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:04:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <veggha$lk27$11@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <veeh55$8jnq$2@dont-email.me>
 <6366149d6d163bb696e920cfe4c8fd8dc251bb5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vef4jk$bknp$4@dont-email.me>
 <168a97aa530bf888e603d7b2af9384eaac889a1c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:04:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dff4ea9256eef2f131620d81ba94869";
	logging-data="708679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7HqdPODgZWiWxJIHntqFK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AlE3mzQ6GFvkj2fhSAKOzvMx2HU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <168a97aa530bf888e603d7b2af9384eaac889a1c@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7560

On 10/13/2024 7:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/12/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *It is a verified fact that you are clueless about this*
>>>>>>>>> It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
>>>>>>>>> have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't make the conclusion true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it does tell that if the conclusion is false then at least one
>>>>>>> of the premises is false, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might not be that a premise is false either, it may only
>>>>>> seem false from a certain "received view" point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software engineering looks at things differently than the
>>>>>> theory of computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
>>>>>> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of 
>>>>> the program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties 
>>>>> of the whole program, not a partial emulation of it.
>>>>
>>>> So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any
>>>> HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the
>>>> counter-factual yes?
>>>
>>> No, you need to de-equivocate the statement, as I have pointed out.
>>>
>>
>> You can't even show that you even know what the word "equivocate" means.
> 
> Sure I did, I showed the two meaning of the word that you were trying to 
> confuse and how you were tring to use it to lie.
> 

Not at all. I provide a precise specification (as in this new post)
[I am claiming that these exact words are necessarily true]

You incorrectly paraphrase these words (your equivocation not mine)
and then form a rebuttal on the basis of the incorrect paraphrase.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer