Richard's Strawman Error

On 10/11/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-10 12:50:20 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/10/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko 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:

... after a short break.

>

    Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.

>

In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.

>
Maybe, but continuously calling your debating opponent a liar, and doing
so in oversized upper case, goes beyond truth and comes perilously close
to stalking.

>
Calling a liar a liar is fully justified. I don't know how often it
needs be done but readers of a liar may want to know that they are
reading a liar.
>

>
The fact that no one can even point out a single mistake
conclusively proves that any lying is not on my side of
the dialogue.

 It does not matter whether the false claims were mistakes or
intentional lies, although in the former case the expected
response would be that either the mistake is corrected or the
author attempts to support the claim with a better argument or
evidence. If the response is simply a repetition of the claim
then the assumption of an intentional lie is supported.
 

Now that we uncovered Richard's strawman error of changing the
premise
*When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then*
and forming a rebuttal based on this change we can see that
although Richard's reasoning is still incorrect it never was
the ridiculous nonsense of denying the law of identity that
it seemed to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
*The following is a verified fact*
*When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then*
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.
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
Fully operational code is here.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
It is correct to say that the above is not the typical
way that the halting problem is analyzed. It is incorrect
to say that it is not true. It is a verified fact that
can be understood by anyone with at least a BSCS.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer