Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:13:52 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <vgakr0$vele$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:13:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c03802f94c328efff99322eacddb6cd";
	logging-data="1030830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sH6TGHfEmVB9C87GYk40e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+zS+dsQHTsr/oW4n4gW6N35qhXE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241104-0, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 5530

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.
> 

When someone says that a statement is a lie and they
only mean that it is false then they are a liar because
they are intending to deceive.

To say this without intending to deceive they would say
that the statement is a lie(unintentionally false statement).

In other words they should have just said it was "false"
to begin with if they did not intend to deceive.

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