Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:03:44 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <velb5g$1l8lt$1@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> <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$2@dont-email.me> <vefu4a$jqi5$1@dont-email.me> <vegc8o$lk27$3@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 11:03:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f76a410d37d03fdaebf88092050c0659";
	logging-data="1745597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WF8jgRWbTNluPsbZgnOfe"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T4z1wsX25P61O7N7vpS8y+opIys=
Bytes: 5531

On 2024-10-13 11:51:52 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/13/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-12 10:17:25 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>>>> *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.
>> 
>> If the inference is valid and conclusion is false then at least one
>> of the premises [is] false
> 
> Yes that is a correct use of terminology.
> Premises cannot be invalid, they can only be true or false.

Attempts to use a premise that has no truth value are occasionally seen.
Such premises are invalid and the reulsting reasoning is nonsense.

-- 
Mikko