Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 12/10/2024 23:07, joes wrote:

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?
 

I think it's just because occasionally I make some statement that PO interprets as supporting him. He is desparate for ANYONE to NOT say that every single thing he says is false.  Also there is probably an element of PO just trying to goad me into posting again, although I can't see what he hopes to gain from that.
For the record, I don't agree with any of PO's arguments or wider conclusions about "refuting" anything.  The sort of post I've made that gets PO exited is where I've said that one plausible interpretation of one detailed point he said is correct.  (Gasp!  But that shouldn't really be shocking - after all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!  :))
Also, I don't consider any of those conclusions would be remotely contentious from the perspective of anyone else posting here.  I would expect they would all agree with the conclusion
/given the interpretation I set out/, and moreover would /always/ have agreed to it had PO expressed it clearly that way from the start.
Also FTR I don't claim to be a software engineer or computer scientist!  I have an IT/programming work background and a long time ago studied maths.  None of the things that PO claims are "essential prerequisites" for understanding his arguments [such as "x86 expertise"] are essential at all - he just uses this as an excuse to dismiss valid objections from posters.  And obviously PO himself is not a computer scientist or software engineer...
Regards,
Mike.