Re: The actual truth is that ...

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:21:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/12/2024 2:00 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:36:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/12/2024 12:13 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:07:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

 

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

Vide.

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.
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?

"valid" is a term-of-the-art of deductive logical inference. When
the subject is deductive logical inference one cannot substitute the
common meaning for the term-of-the-art meaning.
This is a fallacy of equivocation error.

So "af;kldsanflksadhtfawieohfnapio" is an invalid premise?

"invalid" referring to a premise within the terms-of-the-art of
deductive logical inference is a type mismatch error use of the term.
One could correctly say that a premise is untrue because it is
gibberish. One can never correctly say that a premise is invalid
within the terms-of-the-art.

Back to the topic: your premise that the measure of the behaviour of
DDD is the emulation of it done by HHH is wrong.

I didn't say it exactly that way. Richard thinks that the way you say it
makes a difference. I don't take the time to pay any attention to any
other way to say it than the way that I did say it.

See above. You should pay attention if it didn't make a difference.

The only one here besides me that seems to understand the actual
software engineering aspects of this is Mike.
Everyone else here seems to have no deeper understanding than
learn-by-rote from CS textbook.

I wonder what difference you see in him?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.