Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 10/11/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:

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 <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> 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.

>
We know Peter Olcott has lied in things that matter. However, I believe
his continual falsehoods are more a matter of delusion than mendacity.
As Mike Terry has said, OP's intellectual capacity is low. Calling him
a liar in virtually every post is, I think, unwarranted.
>

It detracts from the substance of your posts, and makes
them, for me at least, thoroughly unpleasant to read.

>

You probably needn't read them.

>
As I said, I mostly don't - which is a pity, since Richard Damon often
posts stuff worth reading.
>

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.

>

-- Mikko

>
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 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/
 

Yes, it does not need to be true, (and you like to assume premises that are false, and then at the end claim you have proved the premise, but that logic doesn't work) but it does need to be a statement with coherent meaning.
A statement based on a definition contradictory to the system you are working in is not valid.
Since, in computation theory, Terminating / Non-Terminating is a property only assigned to Programs, and their direct execution, can not be assigned as a property to something that is not the equivalent of that.
Thus, the criteria can NOT be "redefined" to something which it is not.
You can try to call you HHH a POOP decider if you want. and its criteria is what you say, but then you can't say it is correct about the Terminating/Non-Terminating status of the input, as that is a DEFINED term. You can try to say that HHH shows that its input doesn't POOP.
But, then you run into the bigger issue that the definition of deciders is that the decide if some fixed define class, and that class isn't a funciton of the decider doing the deciding, which your criteria happens to be. Thus, your "POOP Problem" even falls outside the domain of "deciding" into some strange gray area that you need to show a reason for people to want to know about.
Normally, we want to look at things with purely objective answers, no problems that are subjective to the decider. Why should I care if some other machine can or can not do something, I want to know if the machine I am building will be able to do it, thus the problem needs to be objective, and thus the answer only dependent on the input, which you have shown your problem is not.
This just shows how ignorant you are of what you talk about, since you don't understand how far you have fallen from the problem you claim to be doing.