Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

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?

"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.
>

>
No, untrue isn't the normal term of art, except it tri- (or other multi-) valued logics.
>

 Within ordinary deductive logic there seems to be
no such thing as an invalid premise. Mathematical
logic may do this differently.

Nope, You just don't understand logic. Within Formal Logic there is a concept of an invalid premise, being a premise that can not have a logical interpretation.
Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand that words DO have multiple meanings, and you need to use the right one for the context.
Things can be invalid in a number of contexts, and the meaning that applies to logical arguments doesn't apply to the contruction of the premises that it uses.
Note, you uncertainty just shows you basic issue, we ARE talking about mathematical logic, as Computation Theory is a domain of Mathematics (as is most of Computer Science). That you admit it might be different here, but then say it isn't, says you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

You are just showing you don't understand the concepts of the logic system, likely because you stupidly decided to not learn them.
>
Self-inflicted ignorance is NOT an excuse.