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: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:53:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <veipmb$15764$2@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>
 <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:53:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8f20fff893307cbfb842dac28fd5b36";
	logging-data="1219780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TSZwMnzsz/83KCQBqPE3q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hNpmQrTHFJDEjrpLX3Oi1mXr5TA=
In-Reply-To: <veikaf$14fb3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7944

On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

*Validity and Soundness*
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form 
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion 
nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be 
invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all 
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is 
unsound.

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

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