| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vel9ti$1l33r$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:42:26 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 115 Message-ID: <vel9ti$1l33r$1@dont-email.me> References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <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> <veipmb$15764$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f76a410d37d03fdaebf88092050c0659"; logging-data="1739899"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zwsTIO1ED71d9lI5E0qEJ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:aVLMApADAR9EZWsa72kRw2y6B/g= Bytes: 7662 On 2024-10-14 09:53:15 +0000, olcott said: > 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/ Nice to see that you don't disagree. -- Mikko