Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:19:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <vg51sl$3or7a$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f24840444c7ed29233b33314df4ac42c";
	logging-data="3960042"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MsrvrA/pLCCsuLTAhHZFU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mRpKM6dT3cKP4J//VHXchsjodEA=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5680

On 11/2/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-01 12:10:41 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/1/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-01 00:12:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/31/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/31/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 11:03 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2024 11:01, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 11:17:45 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 03:50, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> message in
>>>>>>>>>>>> less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before
>>>>>>>>>>>> responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before
>>>>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>     I doubt whether Peter is either a moron or a troll.
>>>>>>>>>> Does it really matter? If he falsely pretends to be a moron or 
>>>>>>>>>> a liar
>>>>>>>>>> I may politely pretend to believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      It's not exactly polite to describe Peter in any of these 
>>>>>>>>> ways!
>>>>>>>>> Entirely personally, I see no reason to do so in any case.  He 
>>>>>>>>> is quite
>>>>>>>>> often impolite in response to being called a "stupid liar" or 
>>>>>>>>> similar,
>>>>>>>>> but that's understandable.  He is no worse than many a student 
>>>>>>>>> in terms
>>>>>>>>> of what he comprehends;  his fault lies in [apparently] 
>>>>>>>>> believing that he
>>>>>>>>> has a unique insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the perspective of
>>>>>>>> the philosophy of computation I do have new insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When what I say is viewed within the assumption that
>>>>>>>> the current received view of the theory of computation
>>>>>>>> is inherently infallible then what I say can only be
>>>>>>>> viewed as incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, are you willing to state that you are admitting that nothing 
>>>>>>> you might come up with has any bearing on the original halting 
>>>>>>> problem because you are working in a new framework?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am admitting one of two things:
>>>>>> (1) Everyone has misconstrued the original halting problem
>>>>>> as not applying to the behavior actually specified by the
>>>>>> actual input finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is just a lie, so you are just admitting to not knowing what 
>>>>> the facts are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can't possibly be a lie because I am not even asserting
>>>> it as a truth only a possible truth of two possible truths.
>>>
>>> A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.
>>
>> Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
>> deception.
> 
> That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
> all false statements. The statement itself does not change
> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
> it.
> 

It is deception to apply the term {lie} to any expression
of language without qualifying that {intentional deception}
it not meant only {falsity} is meant. In that case it is
still misleading to call something a {lie} when you only
mean that it is {false}.

It is also deceptive to call a statement {false} when you
really only mean that the statement is inconsistent with
the current received view and not false in every sense.

In this case the most honest thing to say is X is not the
way that most experts look at it. X is not a lie and X is
not even false.

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