Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.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: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The actual truth is that ... Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: <39f1a350cac0a8431753486526da1c35f458df65@i2pn2.org> <7959253e834d2861b27ab7b3881619c2017e199f.camel@gmail.com> <2e6d8fc76e4e70decca1df44f49b338e61cc557e@i2pn2.org> <1071eb58637e27c9b2b99052ddb14701a147d23a@i2pn2.org> <58fef4e221da8d8bc3c274b9ee4d6b7b5dd82990@i2pn2.org> <99541b6e95dc30204bf49057f8f4c4496fbcc3db@i2pn2.org> <72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:03:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f696c00f58e5fa7aed5825233c6f706"; logging-data="282362"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189yvJ/t9tK0BYHyM4DRivr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GHZAFyoM+uC0x5pUhTmQxVXkXB0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <72315c1456c399b2121b3fffe90b933be73e39b6@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 6576 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 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:34:34 +0000, Alan Mackenzie said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon 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? > > >>>>> *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. > > No, your premise can NEVER be valid, because it is based on > >> >> Software engineering looks at things differently than the >> theory of computation. > > Not on this point. > >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer >> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns. > > Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the > program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the > whole program, not a partial emulation of it. So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes? Two guys with masters degrees in computer science do not agree. That seems to indicate that your EE degrees provide somewhat of a deficient basis for software engineering. Mike seems to be the only one here that is not deficient in actual software engineering. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer