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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ...
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:21:35 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <c81fcbf97a35bd428495b0e70f3b54e545e8ae59@i2pn2.org> <vef37r$bknp$2@dont-email.me> <7e79306e9771378b032e6832548eeef7429888c4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:21:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a163b5627f49dc5fbbd0e0b4effbff24";
	logging-data="1195363"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Kxa8NZbr1F/8L9MgM6ygT"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0f9NCT7wcj7R6k1k1I95gkU6d2M=
Bytes: 6848

On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> "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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other 
>>> multi-) valued logics.
>>> 
>> 
>> Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
>> no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
>> logic may do this differently.
> 
> Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a 
> concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a 
> logical interpretation.
> 
> Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have 
> multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.

The meaning of invalid is basically the same: a thing is invalid if it is
not what it is claimed or required to be. The differences in definitions
are just adaptations to the details of different requirements.

-- 
Mikko