Re: The actual truth is that ...

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 <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:

>

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