Re: Richard's Strawman Error

On 10/11/24 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:

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
 

No, it reveals *YOUR* 20 year old straw man error based on your total ignorance of what you are talking about.

*When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then*
 

Where you are basing your arguement on an equivocation, because that REQUIRED meaning for your conclusion is a property that only hold for the FULL execution of the program described, since non-termination does NOT mean didn't terminate so far, but will NEVER terminate, even when done for an umbounded number of steps, but of course, and aborted emulation doesn't go for an unbounded number of step.
You also lie about the meaning of the "program" DDD, as you don't want to include the HHH that it calls as part of it, so you can try to claim that two DIFFERENT DDD are "the same".

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

No, it just proves that you are a stupid idiot.
You STARTED by talking about Halting, which as you have previous correctly defined to be about the actual machine reaching a final state

 *The following is a verified fact*
*When the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is the measure then*

No, it just proves your use of equivocation.
The behavior of the program DDD, which was emulated by HHH, is the behavior of the full program DDD, which includes the HHH that it calls, which your auxilary clause confirms is the same HHH as was emulating it.
That DDD halts.
What didn't reach the final state, is the emulaition done by HHH, but that only fails to reach the final state because HHH stopped its emulation early.

 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.
 

It is based on a LIE.
You don't get to change the meaning of the fundamental terms.
Your logic isn't just "not the typical", it is in violation of the rules of the system.
All you are doing is proving that you are just an ignorant liar that doesn't understand what he says, and doesn't care that he is making errors because it seems right to him.
That just confirms that you logic is worthless.